https://defense-update.com/20220603_intelligent-firepower.html

The Israelis are at it again

Pitbull is where I've been envisioning things heading for awhile.

The crows update also has strong potential too though it's too large and power hungry 

Power consumption is gonna be a big deal going forward for the simple fact that defending our logistics trains is going to get more and more difficult 

roguetechie said:

Power consumption is gonna be a big deal going forward for the simple fact that defending our logistics trains is going to get more and more difficult 

military vehicles will need bigger power generation capacity - that's simply the way it is going to be. Already happening in warships. And in fighters. In most vehicles it is easy. just stick a bigger alternator to the engine.

Most vehicles may be optimistic. A big part of the reason the US is replacing the M2/3 platform is it can't provide enough electricity for current planned upgrades, let alone even more powerful systems that need electricity.

Oh for sure, but that doesn't mean that we can't do our best to optimize and economize where possible...

Hell, even just when considering the man hours of maintenance and etc that's something you're going to want to do anyway especially considering the trouble western militaries are having keeping up their Manning these days!

Sadly it's pretty clear that too many people aren't really considering the big picture and doing the ground work to actually make western weapons systems viable and cheap enough to support in a real large scale conflict.

A big part of the problem is that the West is representative democracies. "Taxpayer advocates" will say go cheap like we did decades ago; forgetting their spiritual forebears said the same thing! Others will say, you're spending this much, you might as well spend some more for additional capabilities. This is driven by the value placed on human life. The LCS program is a great example of this. During the original proposal being discussed in Congress, the Navy said it would be an expendable vessel due to its low cost. Congress did not react well to "expendable". So the design parameters changed, with horrible results.

Yeah the push and pull in that regard tends 6 mess everything up.

Casualty aversion also affects us more than we'd like to think.

One of my fears is that with the changing technological landscape, specifically our undisputed technological dominance for the last several decades, that allowed us to fight in a very cash intensive casualty averse way the American public much less the government and 5 branches are ready to go back to fighting wars where losing people is just a given because we can no longer pay extra cash to avoid the cost in blood!

Losing people and expensive equipment is going to be a given as we go forward.

Which means that we're back to needing to plan and build equipment in such a way where we inflict disproportionate damage for a given expenditure of men and equipment such that we can afford to keep up the effort longer than our potential enemies can!

(A tall order considering the several million screaming china men and industrial juggernaut backing them)

While the consumer world gets products that are not only leaps and bounds better year after year, but they get cheaper and cheaper to boot...

On the Government and military industrial complex end though we have a unique talent for paying more for less year after year.

 

I am thinking that we quite possibly want to include anti drone functionality in all RWS, and, at the same time, revisit where we put RWS. The EOS TITANIS system looks like an option https://www.eos-aus.com/defence 

Anti drone 12.7mm gatling

https://youtu.be/yt-wQrMflZ8 (somehow the insert media thang is not working)