Room No. 15

A BRIEF DISCUSSION : THE BATTLEFIELD

WAR OF THE FUTURE

(I) Preamble (II) Advanced Electronic Warfare Systems

(C-I)

.

humanoid one

.

updated : 22/06/2016

.

CONTENTION 

Without appealing to what is the natural proclivity of human beings, which is toward aggression, that controlling information at its source does often engage the notion that compassion is a weakness, let’s examine the reality of a future conflict engaging the super powers. There is a great deal of sociopolitical / geo-strategic hot air regarding who owns what, particularly with regard to the quantity, the numbers, the deployable ‘manpower’’ .

Equally, the argument regarding how much of valuable resource can become what is very essentially destructive is not worthy of examination, that defence becomes offence – how this can ignore the basic requirements of a collective who enjoy the status of being its funders is only an observation here, one more often the case depending upon who one is scrutinizing. The very proclivity is the necessity and this condition will not change, but is certain to become even more consolidated into geo-strategic ambitions. Perhaps this is their (a collective’s) reason, to be the funders, if little more than such? Not to expect life enhancing, rather than what are essentially life destroying initiatives / attributes, the latter expectation residing in the realms of naïvety for many, if even a consideration at all, again depending on whom one is looking at.

What is worthy of examination is the emerged status of the future war theater wherein the human being cannot exist.

The latter assertion calls into question; what the reality of future war is thought by the majority to actually be? Many would argue this status being the case, but in so doing, they have their reasons.

What is the reality thought to be?

Most, if asked would likely assume that engaging in a future war theater is more akin to a WWI situation, or to that of Vietnam, to Iraq, and thus have no idea whatsoever of where we have arrived at and of the real consequences.

This is the way it is because to many such a preoccupation does not hold much by way of value, vis a vis the content and nature of life. To others it is the opposite, there being threads of conviction throughout based upon whatever ideal that certain courses of action are the right ones, if not the only ones.

Perhaps there are other things to consider than such war preparedness structure, but the point is that the underlying danger of this new posture becoming ‘nothing’ / ‘non-existent’ is now much more likely than ever before, to the extent that engagement would change any conception of ‘likely’ into that of ‘certain’.

Going back to what I said regarding the nature of future war; many would, if they were asked, present some picture of the machinery (be it complex) they assume constitutes an armed force. When I say ‘many’ I’m referring to a broad spectrum of people and across all interests (or disinterest) and including the war gamer, the military planner and so on.

The nature of future combat renders the latter mentioned ‘pictures’ ‘games’ obsolete by eons, thereby rendering their intention to that of the asymmetric.

So, what can one expect to constitute an accurate picture? It’s a picture that negates the dimension of time – It is very easy to appeal to historical record and to what has transpired thereafter – Such is the case, we are here so to do, and as I said with conflicts close to and within the present era, including what is presented as practice / operations.

However, a future super power conflict calls into effect an altogether different paradigm – that of the necessity for perfected novel technologies and the capitulation which initially would render individual thought into confusion, social structures into mass chaos, but only so during instantaneous bringing into play of the most destructive ingenuity. The latter would guarantee that any capacity to own the concept of time is meaningless.

Put simply, human beings recognize time as a construct, ‘machines’ (and systems of machines) do not. Machines are such that they can and do engage each others capacity, as is obvious. Human biology is fragile, machines are not ***. Human beings die, machines do not. Machines are products of human ingenuity, but there is a point where that ingenuity, its command and control, has become of very redundant criteria. 

So I posit we take a broad sweep across the new developments.

***The adjectives that came to mind to describe the opposite of the truth were; inviolable, formidable, invulnerable, immortal.

It is pertinent to discuss what has and is used to convey messages where these qualities reside, who is doing what and how these in their appropriate/inappropriateness differ vastly from our example – and we do so elsewhere. Suffice it to say that in the current time such is a complex amalgam of seductive facets intended to achieve this end state, that of a collective mind who agrees, who shares a certain conviction, or the greater part of it. Inviolability, formidability, invulnerability, immortality.

What I posit for discussion is why these qualities are not applicable in any way shape or form to the person/s in the future theater of war.

(C-I (C-III) (C-V)

Archived material (from 2015) – Beam Weapons. Updated concepts now applicable

.

(C-III) I think before we do what you’re asking – say why we think the modern battlefield and the manpower/personnel that constitute battalions of soldiers have become mutually incompatible, in your opinion to the fullest extent, I’d like to investigate one of the reasons that constitute your view, first, by talking about lasers. It’s not in the sequence you introduced but I don’t think it matters.

I’ll just state that though not confined to artillery, I think many might assume you were referring to its devastating capacity and which would completely decimate any number of personnel. In this, the point of redundancy you made has validity and along with the rendering of military activity to the realms of asymmetry.

You also introduced the super power engagement, in which the ensuing escalation into the deployment of WMD is guaranteed . There is a good deal to clarify.

So I’m pointing you toward the question; What constitutes a laser, how it is weaponized, by who and to what effect?

(C-I) It doesn’t matter – sticking to the list, I mean. My introduction was only a broad sweep and intended to offer an opportunity for us to wade in complex issues, as we see fit. Much will be left out.

(C-III) High Energy Laser Weapons; So these have been progressively evolving since the 60s. An evolution marked by a series of notable sci-tech breakthroughs and engineering achievements.

The popular conception of a High Energy Laser Weapon is one of constructing a giant laser and pointing it at a target with the intention of ‘vaporizing’ it, but this bears only vague, if any similarity at all to a real High Energy Laser Weapon. There have been and still are very real technological and operational challenges inherent within the creation of a useful and operational weapon.

(See file:   Archived material (from 2015) – Beam Weapons)

Kinetic or projectile weapons, I’m referring to guns, missiles and explosive devices destroy targets by kinetic effects, including over-pressure, projectile, shrapnel – spalling damage, and incendiary effects. The result is structural impairment and fire, which can and often will cause fatal damage to a target.

A kinetic weapon uses stored chemical energy in propellants and warhead explosives, the latter where used, and delivers this energy to a target by means of a projectile of some sort. Whether the projectile weapon is a trebuchet/sling tossing a large rock over 200 yards, or a multi-mode seeker equipped long range air to air missile hitting an aircraft from 200 nautical miles away, the underpinning principle is largely the same – only the implementation is different.

At the most fundamental level Directed Energy Weapons share the concept of delivering a large amount of stored energy from the weapon to the target, to produce structural and incendiary damage effects. >>The fundamental difference is that a Directed Energy Weapon delivers its effect at the speed of light, rather than supersonic or subsonic speeds typical of projectile weapons.<<

Two of the most fundamental problems with projectile weapons, is getting the projectile to successfully travel a useful distance and hit the target, and then produce useful damage effects, are problems shared by Directed Energy Weapons. Having a powerful laser or microwave emitter does not constitute a Directed Energy Weapon system alone.

Much that is introduced on this topic seems to lump together a broad mix of weapons technologies in the Directed Energy Weapon grouping, including High Energy Laser weapons, High Power Microwave weapons, particle beam weapons and Laser Induced Plasma Channel weapons. The first two of these four classes of weapon are genuine Directed Energy Weapons. Particle beam weapons are best described as a form of projectile weapon, using atomic or subatomic particles as projectiles, accelerated to relativistic speeds. The Laser Induced Plasma Channel weapon is a hybrid, which utilizes a laser to ionize a path of molecules to the target, via which an electric charge can be delivered into the target to cause damage effects.

Of these four categories, High Energy Laser weapons have the greatest potential in the short term to produce a significant effect. High Power Microwave technology owns similar potential, but has not been funded as generously here (though it has with the Chinese, hungry for new technology *** see note) and thus lags well behind lasers. Laser Induced Plasma Channel weapons own significant potential especially as a non-lethal weapon. Particle beam weapons at this time are apt to remain in the science fiction domain, as the weight and cost as yet, do not justify the achievable military effect.

This coming decade will introduce the reality of High Energy Lasers as an operational capability. These weapons will have the unique capability to attack targets at the speed of light and are likely to significantly impair the effectiveness of many weapon types, especially ballistic weapons. Constrained by propagation physics, these weapons will not provide all weather capabilities, and will perform best in clear sky dry air conditions.

***  China began with the Poly WB-1, which is/was a ‘non-lethal’ ray gun intended for crowd dispersal, – makes targets feel like that their skin is on fire..

TWB-1, presented in 2014 has a current range of about 80 meters, though it can be expanded to 1 kilometer.

Using a similar principle to a contemporary microwave oven it (Poly WB-1) provokes movement in the fat and water molecules located just below the skin surface, making the target feel like they are aflame from the inside. As soon as the target steps away from the ray, the pain ceases, supposedly leaving no structural damage to nerve endings and blood vessels located deeper below the epidermis.

>>The point being that China’s extremely hungry collective psyche and clandestine development of novel weaponry has resulted in a very much more powerful version of the ray gun. This version is mountable on robots, drones and maritime vessels and concerning the latter, though it’s a contentiously introduced point; allowing the PLA Naval Forces to very effectively enforce claims against the US and anyone else in the East China and South China Seas.

.

humaniod two

.

(C-I) Before we continue with ‘beam weapons’ just let me introduce the notion of Prompt Global Strike. I have information on the US status in this, and the Chinese and Russian parallel developments. It’s the concept which is the issue. By the way did you see the feature on China News for delivery of EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) weapon via hyper-sonic vessel to specific targets in the USA? I shall not refer to any UK  developments. Here are my notes:

XS-1 Prompt Global Strike – this being on the Russian space
# Kosmos_MVP

New unmanned shuttle Pentagon – scout interceptor, bomber and cheaper alternative boosters

Build long-term hyper-sonic reusable XS-1 space UAV will begin in 2017. According to Defence Talk resource at the beginning of next year, the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) Pentagon chooses the project of one of the bidders on the development machine. This ready-made projects to be submitted for study no later than 22/07/2016.

At present, the tender involved three consortium of American companies: Boeing with BLue Origin, Masten Space Systems with XCOE Aerospace, and Northrop Grumman with Virgin Galactic (contracts with them were signed in 2014 – when both started the project). According to the plans DARPA, the new UAV trials should begin in 2019-2020 year.

Earlier it was reported that the assembly first technology demonstrator will begin in the spring of 2016, however, this phase has been shifted due to financial reasons. Reduced prototype payload from 408.2 to 680.4 kg will have to endure a series of one run for ten consecutive days to orbit a day. And in the course of a series of launches of the device should not be repaired and undergo maintenance.

It is noted that XS-1 in the future will be used to deliver a low earth orbit various equipment. The cost of launching the serial device should not exceed five million dollars. Presumably, the UAV is returned to the launch pad winged first stage, second stage is dispersed non-refundable, which takes into orbit a payload. According to DARPA requirements, serial XS-1 should reach speeds of more than ten Mach numbers (11.5 thousand kilometers per hour) and carry a variety of payloads weighing a total of 1.36 to 2.27 tons. The size itself XS-1 should be comparable to the American F-15 fighter the Eagle, whose length – 19.43 m, height – 5.63 meters, wingspan – 13.05 meters.

As noted in the DARPA, the use of XS-1 should reduce the cost of running government satellite phones at the time, the price of vehicles in orbit by classical rockets is increasing. If successful, the Americans dramatically change the situation on the market of space launches that have a negative impact on orders for the Russian provider. Note that in 2015, Russia was the world leader in space launches rockets from 26 starts, as well as in 2014 – with 36 starts. The number of US launch in the 2015th – 20.

But that’s not all – we should not forget that these developments have a dual purpose. According to experts, the UAV XS-1 during the war can serve as a means for fast satellite replacement, damaged or destroyed by the enemy. Also Experimental Space Plane One (XS-1), the program will allow the US to conduct experiments with hypersonic devices, able to reach any point on the planet and go into orbit. That is, this program – a tool for the implementation of the approved by George W. Bush “Prompt Global Strike” concept (PGS – Prompt Global Strike), along with the likes of Advanced Aerospace System Concepts (AASC), Hyper-sonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC ), Tactical Boost Glide (TBD), NAI WaveRider, Force Application and Launch from the CONtinental US (FALCON).

Note that the device will be created by the scheme, similar to the already existing space unmanned spacecraft X-37B. Apparatus X-37B is controlled by the US Air Force, its mission is classified. At the present time makes the fourth flight in the framework of this program – X-37B (OTV-4) was launched on May 20, 2015 using the “Atlas 5” carrier rocket from launch pad SLC-41 US Air Force base at Cape Canaveral. Note that its predecessor – the unit OTV-3 – in orbit 674 days. The length of the X-37B is 8.8 meters, wingspan – 4.5 m, height – 2.9 meters. Maximum take-off weight of this device is 4.99 tons. Equipped with a cargo compartment length of 2.1 meters and a width of 1.2. Meals onboard systems drone during his stay in orbit at the expense of solar panels and energy storing batteries. That is the main difference from the XS-1 X-37B (apart from size) – in the process to achieve orbit: the machine X-37B rocket into orbit, while the XS-1 should start their own.

Note that Jane’s Defense Weekly repeatedly published materials, stating that the project (X-37) runs completely in the interest of the US Defense Department. Moreover – it provides output in a space of class “space-to-space” weapons and “space-to-face.” The fact that Washington has for a long time strongly deviates from the negotiations on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, in addition to placement of weapons of mass destruction, which is prohibited under the contract, which came into force 10 October 1967. As I noted in an interview with “SP”, the former deputy chief of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the Russian Defence Ministry Lieutenant-General Yevgeny Buzhinsky, “1967 Treaty bans placing nuclear weapons in space, but the Americans are not going to do it: they have plans to build a missile defense system which assumes a cosmic train – placing different platforms in different orbits. “

We can assume a number of tasks for which this machine will be oriented to the expert in the field of unmanned systems.

In particular, the use as an interceptor, acting against the targets in the atmosphere and in space. In addition, of course, are possible targets for exploration. The role of the bomber, which some colleagues argue, in principle, is certainly possible, but I think unlikely.

Requirements are imposed on the whole space UAV, dictated by the tasks for which this machine is created, which, as I said, we can only assume due to lack of information. Also, to the unit due to the need also demands functioning both in the atmosphere and in vacuum. It is worth noting, the gain in terms of the acquisition of this kind of flexibility will inevitably entail a loss in a number of specifications – the difference does not allow media to create devices that effectively work everywhere.

As for the differences between the X-37B and XS-1, there is, in principle, appropriate and chronologically deeper comparison with projects of 60-70 years, including the American X-20 Dyna Soar and the Soviet “Spiral”. As for the comparison with the X-37, how it can judge the available data, XS-1 both by its larger dimensions and weight. However, both data development, in my opinion, are mainly aimed at achieving the same goal. Namely, in the refinement of the technologies the development of advanced aerospace vehicles of various classes.

.

On AEWS

Regarding US MI Complex of Air-Sea integrated battlefield information network. As of today this program is still in evolution and the special force charged with implementation was folded. A new name was given in 2015. The new one has a long acronym: Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC).

In 2014 at Zhuhai, China offered three packages of battlefield integration to smaller countries, ATS-03, and a digital unit called Link-16 in various offerings. And China had her own version TKS-2-27, which roughly speaking was the generation similar to the American system.

Now China’s own military newspaper describes their current situation where they have completely implemented Air-Sea-Land multi-platform total integration. A new generation of integration devices has now up-graded their Air-Sea-Land-Space total digital integration of their military capabilities. While American claimed to invent the concept, the PLA quietly leapfrogged and implemented their newest iteration in what they describe as Centralize Integrated Digital Battlefield Data Chain. All their 3rd generation fighter J-11 have been retrofitted so that they are able to coordinate over 100 planes to fly as one group while also linked with satellite, AWAC, radar, missile batteries, In other words they have achieved what the J-35 has been promising to deliver in the future but is in software delay, never never land. F-22 cannot get integrated.

Should this be a surprise? Since 2000 China has dominated the design, sourcing, manufacturing of all things electronics in the world in large volumes and in rapid evolution. Huawei China’s leading telecommunication technology leader is the world’s top group in producing innovation patent of any kind. Tops in Supercomputers, in robotics, in vision IPs, in Super Trains transport systems, and many other fields, China’s restructured manufacturing infra-structure is pumping out dominating offerings in the world’s most exciting industries.

Yet to be fully understood is the increase in the speed of China’s functional dynamics by 9 times from the finished network of China’s Super Trains. In other words, if all the ingredients needed to develop future military systems are in China, defense contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin will need to create their own local sub industries if they want to come up with a superior new set of weapons. It is like starting a whole fire to fry one egg. The reflections from multiple sources of industrial and technology intelligence is very useful to see a reality journalists can only guess at.

Air-Sea concept [not implemented and renamed JAM-GC.] has been superseded.

.

On First Law of Robotics

A robot that can intentionally harm a person, and thus violate the first law of robotics by Isaac Asimov. It is reported by Fast Company.

Reuben Alexander of the University of California at Berkeley has created a platform with a special place to finger and a robot equipped with a needle. When a person puts a finger, the robot independently decides to attack it or not. Thus the robot can break the first of the three laws of robotics, science fiction writer Isaac Asimov formulated: “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.”

The author says that his aim was not to create a robot that will always attack a woman or a man. Reuben argues that in each case the robot decides how to behave, and it can not predict its behavior. According to the creator, the existence of such a robot indicates problems in modern robotics, which need to be addressed.

Mandatory rules of behavior for the robot were formulated by Isaac Asimov in his story “Runaround” in 1942.

Video : First Law.

.

Mach Zircon Hyper-Sonic Missile for 5G Submarines. (Russian Federation)

Notes I see file

Notes II see file

.

Robots to replace soldiers in future, says Russian military’s tech chief

robot cyborg

.

Future warfare will see sophisticated combat robots fighting on land, in the air, at sea and in outer space, the head of Russia’s military hi-tech body has said, adding that the days of conventional soldiers on the battlefield are numbered.

“I see a much greater robotization of war, in fact, future warfare will involve operators and machines, not soldiers shooting at each other on the battlefield.”  – Lieutenant General Andrey Grigoriev, Head of the Advanced Research Foundation (ARF)

He noted that future warfare will be determined by unmanned combat systems:

“It would be powerful robot units fighting on land, in the air, at sea as well as underwater and in outer space.”

“They would be integrated into large comprehensive reconnaissance-strike systems.” – Grigoriev.

“The soldier would gradually turn into an operator and be removed from the battlefield.” – Grigoriev.

Month 10/2015, the United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation (UIMC) said it had developed the Unicum software package, which is capable of powering a group of up to 10 robotic systems. It can distribute ‘roles’ among robots, choose a ‘commander’ of the robotic task force and assign a combat mission to each individual machine.

Humans, however, will still play a role on the battlefield until robotized warfare becomes reality, Grigoriev stressed. While work on Russia’s infantry combat system Ratnik 2 is underway, the AFR is already looking for a next-generation upgrade.

The Legionnaire, a new project, would involve brand-new firearms, communications systems as well as enhanced protection from bullets and shrapnel, allowing an infantryman “to feel comfortable in any environment.”

Last year, Russia unveiled a constellation of sophisticated robots armed with machine guns, automatic cannons, grenade launchers and non-lethal equipment. Russia’s latest main battle tank, the T-14 Armata, will also get robotized features which are likely to make it the deadliest unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) ever known.

In June last year, Grigoriev also told reporters that Russia was developing a cyborg “resembling a human in appearance” and designed to operate in hostile environments. The humanoid will learn how to run, jump, overcome obstacles and even ride a motorbike, he announced. (see below)

In March of this year, Uran-6 mine-cleaning robots were used by Russian bomb disposal units deployed to the Syrian city of Palmyra on a de-mining mission. The robots were said to be capable of carrying out controlled explosions or destroying explosive devices they encounter.

.

 

.

ROBOTS IN BATTLEFRONT ACTION

The U.K is to develop robots to supply front-line troops – as was announced at the recent Farnborough International Air Show.

British Defense Minister Philip Dunne – we want to speed up the impact that robotic and autonomous systems can have on re-supplying their armies through the program.

The final stage of transportation of supplies to troops in challenging environments, often dubbed ‘the last mile,’ can be particularly lengthy and dangerous for those involved. It is in situations like this that  robotics can make the process more efficient in terms of cost, time and risk.

A series of trials of autonomous systems, including unmanned air and ground vehicles, will begin in October next year.

Alongside trials, calls to industry and academia will also be made to identify further test technologies, with work set to culminate in a final trial event in October 2019, where a wide range of selected technologies will be brought together in one, integrated system.

At Farnborough, Dunne outlined how science and technology teams have been working for six months so to develop innovative proposals which can benefit the defense industry and beyond.

Dunne: “This will put our nation at the forefront of future developments — allowing us to transform our approach to military logistics.”

The robotics work will be led by the British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory in partnership with British Army staff. In addition, the British Army is supplying personnel and equipment in support of the demonstrations and experiments.

.

 

Return to Room No.15 – if you came from there

Contact Unit

.

continued below

r15 nuke

.

MIT. Invisible water robots for stealth, medical (and military applications)

Engineers at MIT have developed soft water-based robots which are almost entirely invisible underwater and could/will be used by the navy to avoid detection.

The machines are constructed entirely from hydrogel – a strong and supple substance with water as the main constituent. They work, and locomote, via the power of water pumping through their bodies.

The research was funded by the Office of Naval Research, the MIT Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, and the National Science Foundation.

The team at MIT created several types of robots, including a fin-like flapping machine, a bot that makes kicking motions, and a soft, hand-shaped claw with flexible arms.

Because the robots are both powered by, and made almost entirely of water, they can be virtually invisible. When they are placed into water, they appear almost entirely camouflaged.

Scientists released a video of the bots performing a number of tasks, including gently and stealthily grabbing a live fish. The surprised fish seems to have had no idea the machine was close by until it was trapped in its clutches. qThe researchers are looking to adapt the robots for medical purposes. As hydrogels are mostly composed of water, they are safe to use in a biomedical environment.

“Hydrogels are soft, wet, biocompatible, and can form more friendly interfaces with human organs.,” – Zhao.

“We are actively collaborating with medical groups to translate this system into soft manipulators such as hydrogel ‘hands,’ which could potentially apply more gentle manipulations to tissues and organs in surgical operations.”

The team has developed ways to adhere the hydrogels to various surfaces such as glass, metal, ceramic, and rubber using strong bonds that resist peeling. In experiments, they found the structures were able to withstand repeated use without rupturing or tearing.

.

PRC

Chinese defense officials are heralding a major change in the country’s nuclear strategy after flight-testing a new long-range missile variant that can carry 10 warheads. The DF-5C missile was flown, using 10 multiple independently-targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). Central China’s Taiyuan Space Launch Center hosted the flight test, while US intelligence agencies monitored the testing of the dummy warheads.

.

in process

.

Room No. 15

A BRIEF DISCUSSION : THE BATTLEFIELD / WAR OF THE FUTURE

.

Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum