3 ms·
Interesting. The part that piqued my interest most is that weight is a huge factor in efficiency for the military (kind of surprised I didn't think of that bef
by kposehn 13y ago
Interesting.
The part that piqued my interest most is that weight is a huge factor in efficiency for the military (kind of surprised I didn't think of that before).
By replacing 25% of a brigade with robots, the army could substantially reduce weight without a commensurate decrease in battlefield effectiveness. This would lower fuel costs, increase combat readiness (fewer people to drill) and make time-to-battlefield far shorter.
I would think that in the tooth-to-tail equation, robots have a substantial place at both sides. As the saying goes, “Amateurs think about tactics, but professionals think about logistics.” (General Robert H. Barrow, USMC) and making the logistics chain more effective could translate into an overwhelming advantage.
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoBecause robot do not need fuel, maintenance, or spare parts. If you replace 25% of brigade with robots, you will need to add 2-3% of personnel minimum for maintenance of those robots. And that is before spare parts and supplies. And you definitely need to train people to work together with robots, so I think drilling time will actually go up. So while, there will be reduction and weight and potentially highly increased performance, I do not think it will be pronounced in first few generations.
- kposehn 13y ago> Because robot do not need fuel, maintenance, or spare parts. Actually, they do need those - but most likely have significantly lower maintenance/upkeep costs than the average soldier. Still a big savings. Good point about drilling time. Maybe less man-hours in drilling overall, but more per head?
- JonnieCache 13y agoNow there is an interesting possible future: the american empire is brought low by a massive investment in robotic soldiers from the same contractors that brought you healthcare.gov and the veterans disability payments system.