Future wars to be fought by machines: DRDO Chief

Source--http://idrw.org/?p=17982
+
+
+

.
.
DRDO chief Vijay Kumar Saraswat, who is also
the scientific advisor to the Union government’s
ministry of defence, said future warfare would be
on a remote level, without contact and minus
conventional weapons. He underlined the need to
develop systems like high-power lasers and
‘guided’ energy weapons.
Dr Vijay Kumar Saraswat was conferred a
doctorate in Science by the KL University during
its second convocation in Vaddes-waram village
of Guntur district on Monday.
Speaking on the occasion he said, the defence
scientists had made great strides in the
development of Micro electro mechanical
systems-based censor technologies, smart
materials, Network Centric Warfare, Nano-
materials/nano composites, nano fuels and nano
censors.
Dr Saraswat said that another incredible
achievement of DRDO was the indigenously
developed light combat aircraft Tejas.
Describing the development of the first nuclear
submarine, INS Arihant, as an engineering
‘marvel’, he pointed out that with its launch, India
had joined the exclusive club of similar six
countries.
The DRDO scientists are now working for the
development of scramjet-propelled aircraft
required for hypersonic flight, which could reach
New York from Delhi in an hour.
He said “Demand for skilled engineers and
technologists will increase in the coming years in
the country, with science and technology more
actively pursued.” He suggested that the country
introduce schemes which would ensure more
fluid collaborations between scientists,
technologists and industry, academic institutions
and research and development laboratories.
Addressing the university students and faculty,
he said the mission of the DRDO is to design and
develop state-of-the-art defence systems and technologies required for the country.

 

Air power at one time was said to be able to win a war alone. History shows we will always need infantrymen. Real people. There is no substitute for the guy in the foxhole with the enemy in his sights.

 

They say airpower cant win a war, but that is not true,, USA defeated Japan with airpower, thought it took a couple of atomic bombs to do it. But because some was true in the past dont mean its going to be true in the future. With the advent of smart bombs, it may be able to win a war with air power alone.

It would be brutal but with smart bombs a county with air superiority could take out every bridge, every utility, ever dam, communication facility. ship barge, even trucks and buses at a certain point air power could win.

 

Do tell how you occupy a territory with smart bombs.

 

You dont occupy the terroritory, you give the people there the choice of living in the stone age or doing what ever they are told.

 

We did not have smart bombs in vietnam, and we have not put smart bombs to use to the point of destroying Afganstan or Pakistan. How would life be in your country with out power, sewage or water plants, all bridges, dams destroyd, all communications facilites and no trucks allowed to move. no goverment buildings, ships, barges.with drones patrolling every road and overhead 24 hours a day.

 

If I remember right we used a few toward the end of the Vietnam war......we even used one during WWII, but the technology was not there yet.

 

I will have to admit it did not, though there were not many smart bombs available dureing vietnam, bombing N Vietnam did force them to the table and the release of american prisioners.

 

That's why those people say fvck it and develop nukes, because they know that even 1 or 2 nukes will scare Uncle Sam off. Case in point: North Korea.

 

No smart bombs in Vietnam, but orange juice.

By the way, it's mainly the US navy who defeated the japanese.

The first rank US military force won't tolerate their contributions being stolen by the second rank US military force.

 

Well, you can't occupy ground without boots... but French air power has been the deciding factor in all three African interventions.

 

Deciding Factor now you have to push your analysis a bit further.

Airpower useful against poor Libya, Ivory Coast that possess no airforce and derelict air defense system but can it be the lone winning factor in all out war?

Airpower is more like to complement the Infantry who will always remain the key factor on the battlefield. Let's take last war India fought the Mirage-2000 was used to attack key target which eased the task of Infantry but airstrikes itself could not have helped us win this war.

 

Well, take Libya... we had worthless rebels that couldn't move one inch without an airstrike. You are just talking about bodies to hold ground there. Take Mali, the local Army here is utterly worthless in combat, we just need them to hold ground. Cote d'Ivoire was just about scaring Gbagbo to surrender, it was French bombs hitting his compound that did that job. We have three interventions that were decided by air power. Of course you need bodies, but it seems a superior Air Force can substitute a shitty Army.

 

Seriously you are taking Mali and Libya as paradigm to follow?
Here even our smallest neighbour Bangladesh has Mig-29 in its airforce, airpower is a winning factor but not decisive factor for us we will still need infantry.

 

And that where a superior AF comes into play again. You first have to gain air superiority so you can bomb the crap out of them. Air power was a major factor in the Gulf War, but surveillance and weapons have come so far, it can define the battle field now.

 

Foot soldier wins the war even in mordern day warfare:thumb: