iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Who's Malcolm Turnbull? Lol
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Some labor party algned telco twit I believe...Who's Malcolm Turnbull? Lol
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Yep, there's another forum for gunzels.Well not on the LHDs currently, Maybe on Arafura or Choules. People keep complaining about the Arafura lack of firepower.. Imagine organically embarking a 155" Huntsman on the rear.. But we can always contract commercial shipping. Just like to move anything on rail the ADF doesn't operate its own diesel locomotives and rail network, it uses commercial services.
Typically the places rail wins is over trucks. Ships tend to win out over rail in cost. For Australia we just don't have enough heavy armour to justify it big on rail to move it specifically. The US with 10,000 tanks and 100,000 heavy vehicles and an existing rail network is different, same with Russia. They can use massive train capacity to move massive amounts. But that is very 1940-60s thinking. We have inland rail, and it is what it is.
More effective use of rail would be to improve manufacturing/farming/mining logistics. Now that coal is in decline we should base industry near these locations that can use these heavy rail links.
But we are in a RAN thread.. This is a lot of rail talk.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I think they're risk averse to something going wrong if they're fully autonomous. You only have to look at current court cases about the Middle East to know Defence and Government have themselves tied in knots over rules of engagement. It's a different ball game over there. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. How does an autonomous piece of equipment know the difference?I'd toss the question, is that because we don't want to or can't.
I tend to think that our mindset on how to use these new technologies is behind what the technologies can actually do (or will be able to do in the not unreasonable future).
I feel that we are stuck in enforcing (and restricting thinking to) operator in the loop, when we could be preparing for operator on the loop and beyond.
I'm not talking about the here and now, but the technological iteration is so fast at the moment, that it's hard to forecast what a third or fourth gen ghost bat and ghost shark will be capable of doing.
It wasn't that long ago that I remember the government was stuck on the principle that the ghost bat would only be an ISR platform, and then boom we had an armed version released (in my view led by Boeing rather than the government that got dragged kicking and screaming to adopt it). What next, and why does it have to remain within the loyal wingman philosophy.
I know this is an RAN thread, but same mindset applies to the ghost shark, I can see that being substantially different in a couple of generations, with generations being released yearly. And the same applies to platfoms like MUSVs and future LUSVs.
Yep. I get that. Crewed weapons systems have a demonstrated history of mucking this up as well.I think they're risk averse to something going wrong if they're fully autonomous. You only have to look at current court cases about the Middle East to know Defence and Government have themselves tied in knots over rules of engagement. It's a different ball game over there. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. How does an autonomous piece of equipment know the difference?
Don't get me wrong, I view the combined arms model incorporating crewed and uncrewed systems is a model that will remain for my lifetime, just I see more leverage and a longer leash on the uncrewed component, and preference of mine that this is accelerated.
This comes from an opinion that autonomous systems are about the only asymetric lever we have to pull to ballance the ledger in any near/medium term conflict. There are absolute risks, but the need is essential.