Future soldier technology (modified thread)

jsport said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/05/the-case-for-a-24-billion-special-operations-budget/

Notice the author.
Click to expand...
Which one, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense or the president of SOF Action?

The best supporting point in that op-ed is the quote from the current SOCOM boss, when he said they had to turn down 70 separate requests in a single year due to lack of assets.

I also agree that the Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict position needs the legal and budgetary authority to actually do things instead of ask for things.

IMO the different parts of SOCOM should remain part of their own branches, because then each group can specialize. If the mission is in water you call SEALs. If the mission starts in water and goes deep inland you call MARSOC. If the mission stays on land you call a flavor of Army SOC. AFSOC flies delivery and recovery.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which one, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense or the president of SOF Action?

The best supporting point in that op-ed is the quote from the current SOCOM boss, when he said they had to turn down 70 separate requests in a single year due to lack of assets.
Click to expand...
SOF is always gonna need to turn down way too many tasks, but many are not a legit requirement from my ancient experience.
Scott Kenny said:
I also agree that the Assistant Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict position needs the legal and budgetary authority to actually do things instead of ask for things.
Click to expand...
This is an ancient & well & widely known need for centralization. 4star egos r not interested & they are always better connected.
Scott Kenny said:
IMO the different parts of SOCOM should remain part of their own branches, because then each group can specialize.
Click to expand...
this has always been an issue. I could write a thesis. This has even put lives in danger. The S cdr is always going to compete w the cocom cdrs.
Scott Kenny said:
If the mission is in water you call SEALs. If the mission starts in water and goes deep inland you call MARSOC.
Click to expand...
can't agree w any of that.
Scott Kenny said:
If the mission stays on land you call a flavor of Army SOC. AFSOC flies delivery and recovery.
Click to expand...
Can't agree w any of that either. You should write a thesis and write a contrary:)
 
Scott Kenny said:
IMO the different parts of SOCOM should remain part of their own branches, because then each group can specialize. If the mission is in water you call SEALs. If the mission starts in water and goes deep inland you call MARSOC. If the mission stays on land you call a flavor of Army SOC. AFSOC flies delivery and recovery.
Click to expand...
jsport said:
can't agree w any of that.
Can't agree w any of that either. You should write a thesis and write a contrary:)
Click to expand...
What jsport wants to say is in practice element assets are volunteered in mixed group ops all the time.
Delta and three letter action and field people among others usually have already done the leg work and likely are on site by the time the call comes in for a military intervention mission.
 
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm...e-is-overwhelming-commanders-with-data-2026-3

Burdening infantry w/ sensor, comms, platform tasks will diminish infantry skill training & practice. Infantry tasks ie patroling, markmanship, phyiscal fitness are already challenging enough. New Fire Control Sights will drive Infanty to be information managers like snipers/FOs at range as well.

This while both ground & air drone operators need be EW, FOs as well ISR & atk masters.

Better that separate close dedicated remote controllers prepare & defend infantry rather then burden the infantry w drones. Maybe infantry can rotate back and forth from infantry to infantry support of both ground & air remote controlers.
 
jsport said:
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-re...nt-approaches-combined-arms-manoeuvre-ukraine
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Ukrainians emphasise mobility, endurance and repairability as critical attributes for armour. In contrast, they generally perceive Western tanks as overly heavy and hard to repair. Crews may appreciate their survivability, but commanders find their availability diminishes quickly. Battle damage to armour is considered an inevitable consequence of its employment. As a result, the speed at which it can be recovered and repaired is critical to maintaining the tempo of operations. Where repair is likely to be slow and difficult, commanders struggle to find use cases that justify exposing their armour.25
Click to expand...
Sounds like we're back to the WW2 repair battalions chasing Shermans to refurbish them overnight.



jsport said:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/eotech-reveals-counter-drone-holographic-sight-44829874
Click to expand...
I want that as a generally-optional reticule on a holosight, not a specific model. "double tap power button to swap reticules" kind of thing.

That way, every grunt with a holosight has the capability to engage UAS.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Interesting.


Sounds like we're back to the WW2 repair battalions chasing Shermans to refurbish them overnight.
Click to expand...
tanks & even IFVs need be primarily used in raid-like indirect fire ops, as stated repeatedly. Tanks need be capable on mobile indirect fire raids, while simultaniuosly mounting an autocannon RWS able to defeat heavy armor as a direct fire mechanism as has been stated. Likewise, IFVs should mount 50mm autocannons firing guided rds able to precisely engage even heavy armor at BLOS.

Once read that an single armored BDE support structure is nearly the size of a Div. ie over 10k. No wonder the USMC abandoned tanks. One essentially needs a mobile "society" to utilized a Armored BDE. The genuine pax requirement for the US Army and all necessary supporting contractors is dractically understated. More retention & resources are required. AI & robotics are not solving these issues for sometime.
Scott Kenny said:
I want that as a generally-optional reticule on a holosight, not a specific model. "double tap power button to swap reticules" kind of thing.

That way, every grunt with a holosight has the capability to engage UAS.
Click to expand...
just glade there is competetion to make affordable defense for every dismount & possibly all combat support & combat service & support pax near any front. in the end individuals are going to be responsible for their own drone protection.
 
And now we have civilian ammo made out of those NAS3 Steel cases, Desert Tech's Mach 3 ammo line.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9fCCyJ7m-A


Pay attention to the very end, where he fire-forms 5.56 into .223 Ackley Improved chamber contours and the steel case flows like brass is supposed to in that situation.

+150fps just from the thinner case making room for more powder, not jacking the pressure up to 80k+psi.
 
An "Improved" case does increase case volume. It has drawbacks too. Especially in terms of reliability. The steep shoulder is more likely to hang up during feeding.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If the mission is in water you call SEALs.
Click to expand...

And yet, big parts of Afghanistan were SEAL territory for much of the GWOT. Because bluntly, if you only used SEALs for maritime missions, there would be two Teams and Devgru would be like 30 operators.
 
TomS said:
And yet, big parts of Afghanistan were SEAL territory for much of the GWOT. Because bluntly, if you only used SEALs for maritime missions, there would be two Teams and Devgru would be like 30 operators.
Click to expand...
Is there a need for more than that? Or were the teams expanded during GWOT as a part of grabbing more budget authority for their service?

Let Army SOC of whatever flavor own the mountains. (I think that'd be Special Forces, not Delta or Rangers)
 
Issue US Army NGSW and m8 being overpowered, too heavy and mechanical nightmare.

1000044319.jpg

General Dynamics Rm277 better weapon.
With rework to AR compatibility of ergonomics
1000044320.jpg
 
spikedpsycho said:
Issue US Army NGSW and m8 being overpowered, too heavy and mechanical nightmare.
General Dynamics Rm277 better weapon.
With rework to AR compatibility of ergonomics
Click to expand...
So your solution to an alleged 'mechanical nightmare' is to re-engineer the Rm277 from bullpup to standard layout? That's not going to complicate the engineering at all, is it? And if USAr is wedded to a belt-fed SAW, that's another thing that's going to have to be back-engineered into the Rm277 AR variant.
 
DWG said:
So your solution to an alleged 'mechanical nightmare' is to re-engineer the Rm277 from bullpup to standard layout? That's not going to complicate the engineering at all, is it? And if USAr is wedded to a belt-fed SAW, that's another thing that's going to have to be back-engineered into the Rm277 AR variant.
Click to expand...
The only issue with a bullpup is the trigger. Everything else is exactly the same as a standard-configuration rifle.

You can make a sniper quality trigger for a bullpup, it's not even all that hard. A trigger is a lever, not a pushbutton. If you have the op rod back to the trigger sear in tension instead of in compression you get a good trigger. It's literally that simple.

The whole reason for the bullpup configuration of the Rm277 competitor was to avoid the absurd pressure of the SIG cartridge. A longer barrel let them stay with the more normal rifle pressures.
 
DWG said:
That was my point.
Click to expand...
I've put spikedpsycho on ignore, and don't care to push "view ignored content" for him.

Too much complete BS coming out of him.



DWG said:
Well, that and the belt-feed seemingly preferred for NGSW.
Click to expand...
Yeah, mag fed SAWs honestly don't work that well in well trained militaries. Despite the RPK's great work in conscript militaries.

So I'm not quite sure what they were thinking on their mag-fed proposal.

IMO I think the M250 will stick around as a SAW and maybe platoon MG. I think that there will be a 6.8x51 DMR in the squad as well. But not as a general squad weapon. We'll see how long the Army keeps 556 weapons in storage once they transition the line infantry over to M7/M8 series.
 
View: https://youtu.be/Bwg6plxf2as

Sounds like ASpecops is looking to add a 13th ODA member.

That Tm Sgt switching from his small arms focus to drone focus is just dead wrong. His leadership should inform him the future RPAs for LSCO et al just won't be quadcrap so get back to small arms.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom