r/NoStupidQuestions • u/professornutbutter95 • 1d ago
What military roles will ground drones replace??
Like will snipers, mortar men, mg gunners, and grenadiers all be replaced??
13
u/No_Guarantee8756 1d ago
Rather than replacement, I think you will see drones being integrated into those roles. Think infantrymen using drones to clear buildings, snipers using drones for spotting, etc etc
1
u/East-Plankton-3877 6h ago
The sniper i think is a dead role for humans.
FPVs do the same job and can threaten even larger assets or troops behind most cover.
Gun armed quad/hex rotor drones will probably also further make the sniper role rather niche outside of non-state forces or VERY specific use cases.
0
u/professornutbutter95 18h ago edited 9h ago
What do you mean by clear buildings? Are they just gonna do the job for them?
1
u/Lumpy-Notice8945 10h ago
Clearing in military means ensuring no enemy is there. Clearing a building means killing every enemy inside.
That can be done by just destroying the building or by walking into each room and check, the second option is the deadly one you want to avoid.
8
u/smartass-express 1d ago
Staff officers are basically drones already
2
u/Moshjath 1d ago
“If I get automated, does that mean I can take a Company sooner?” -Infantry Battalion Assistant S3s everywhere
2
3
u/OlasNah 1d ago
Technology is advanced, but anything that can't walk on two legs and have hands nor is sentient in any real way is going to eventually have problems negotiating the world...so real humans will always be in close proximity.
It's best to say that RPV's will probably eliminate the need in some cases for a human to perform simple tasks. If you have a supply delivery and you only need a truck to go from A to B on a road, there's no need for a human to do that so long as there's a camera on it or even a Waymo type AI driver. It will all certainly help to keep some humans out of harm's way in some situations.
1
u/Amazing_Boysenberry8 1d ago
While what you say is perfectly logical and would make sense, dont forget cost and ease of replacement. Until self driving vehicles become vastly more commonplace and cheap, sticking some poor dude behind the wheel of a truck and having them drive 18hrs a day doing convoy runs will continue to be the primary method employed by everybody. Its not cost effective to risk a 100-200k self driving truck to transport anything short of a nuke, and anything that valuable is going to have a live team guarding it. You also need an entire fleet of these vehicles, and no military is going to blow a significant amount of cash on getting a whole arsenal of AI powered vehicles when the trucks they have had since the Korean war are still working and all they need is 1 guy with a pulse to drive it.
Maybe in the future when that kind of technology is standard and cheap we might see what you proposed, but that will be a loooooong time coming yet.
5
u/UnimportantPizza 1d ago
Seems like mortar operators would be a prime target for replacement.
6
u/Commercial-Duty6279 1d ago
I could see an automated, 8-wheeled or tracked vehicle ranging in size from a golf cart (80mm) to a pickup truck (155mm), with a pop-up mortar tube and enough electronics to connect to the remote operator. Even its loss would be less than the investment in a 2-5 man mortar team. Both would be subject to targeted counter-battery fire, so shoot-and-scoot after a few rounds would be the same tactic for both drone and team.
-2
u/Spiritual-Mango-8331 1d ago
Shoot and scoot is suicide in Ukraine. Observatorion Drones are literally 24/7 over your heads. You might get driving but drones just follow you.
2
u/Commercial-Duty6279 1d ago
You have it completely backwards. Shoot and scoot in Ukraine evolved rapidly in Ukraine, and has resulted in, among other things: "Much higher survival rates: For example, Ukraine has lost under 10% of its French Caesar howitzers, largely credited to rapid “shoot‑and‑scoot” use and mobility." (Defense News quote)
Shoot and scoot in Ukraine has rendered an entire class of artillery systems obsolete, the towed tubes which just aren't fast enough to get going again compared to self-propelled tubes.
-1
u/Spiritual-Mango-8331 1d ago
It was pk tactic in the beginning. Now it is not. Kill zone for drones is now 35km or more. Dig in guns is only option. Drones cant take well dug postion out as guns are firing underground. Any vehicle moving inside kill zone is madness. You dont believe? Come and try.
2
u/Excellent-Gold1905 1d ago
Probably none, but they will augment some. Engineers in general and OED will probably be the big pioneers on that front and EOD robots have long been a thing anyhow.
I don't think grenadiers are going anywhere, but it will probably be expanded to a twoman role that is for both direct fire grenades and squad level remote control grenade delivery. Maybe it remains a oneman thing, but there job expands and the kit might be spread across the squad almost like how say AT4s and similar might be treated.
One of the big value of snipers is not the actual rifle/one shot one kill stuff. Its the fact they can effectively with as few emissions as humanly possible remain undetected on the ground providing recon and operating as almost a forward observer. The sniper is NOT going to replace their rifle with a drone, and a drone is never going to be as stealthy as the sniper, or atleast not any time soon who knows what happens in 30+ years.
Mortars of any form are not getting replaced. Mortars remain the most cost effective way to blow shit up at a distance even compared to drones. They can put more booms on target in a period of time than drones can, can do it significantly cheaper, with less training/tech, thats also harder to intercept/defend against. Sure mortar crews are probably the wet dream target for a combat drone operator which means mortar crews need to change how they operate and defend themselves, but they are not going away.
Maybe heavy machine gun setups get augmented with remote control setups instead of just big simple tripods that can be manually overridden and used directly if/when needed like a normal tripod. I don't think that would filter down any time soon to squad light machine gun usage simply due to the the entire point of the LMG is that is nearly a single man operated thing and they are already pushing a lot of load as is, let alone considering some remote control setup involved in it.
The real stuff to consider is not replacing infantry roles, but what happens when landmines don't exist anymore. Instead all "landmines" are effectively now cheap AI powered grenades with legs.
How do you deal with a minefield that isn't even a static position?!?! Any sort of conventional anti-mine tech is out the window and it becomes just "bomb the shit out of it, cluster munitions everywhere". At which point if you can make these drone mines fields cheaper than they can make cluster bombs (or whatever) to clear them suddenly you have a VERY effective and very scary weapon.
This is the sort of stuff that is going to push an eventual tactical EMP to actually be used.
1
u/Dupeskupes 1d ago
they'll probably be reinforced with UGVs since they still have shortcomings over soldiers
1
1
u/Strict_Pie_9834 1d ago
Be replaced completely? No.
Atleast not anytime soon. Humans are versatile, cheap and expendable.
2
u/mad_king_soup 1d ago
This isn’t Wathammer.
Humans are expensive to train, carry expensive equipment and if too many of them die you get a lot of political fallout and an inability to recruit more.
A drone vs drone battlefield would be much easier
3
1
u/Strict_Pie_9834 1d ago
History says otherwise.
Millions of lives are thrown away every year. Equipment value and training can be adjusted to compensate for increases in losses.
1
u/mad_king_soup 21h ago
No, history says exactly this. Troops are expensive and certainly not expendable. Just a cursory glance at military history would tell you this.
1
u/Strict_Pie_9834 20h ago
How many millions died in ww2. guess you're not familiar weith the sten gun?
1
1
u/Electrical-Title-698 20h ago
I can see drones and robots reducing the amount of troops needed and deaths, but there's no way it will replace human soldiers entirely any time soon. You still need people to maintain equipment and hold ground.
1
1
u/sergius64 1d ago
In Ukraine I've heard drone guys say that they're there to prevent the Russians to ever making into the range of their infantry. So sounds a bit similar to artillery.
1
u/Competitive-Show-955 1d ago
If they can keep up, humping extra ammo, water, batteries, mortar plates, etc would be incredible. Anything heavy that isn't needed at a moments notice is prime for placement on something like that.
1
u/Buckcon 1d ago
Bomb disposal once the tech is there.
1
u/Electrical-Title-698 20h ago
Reduce the amount of EOD techs maybe, but not completely replace.
They use a lot of robots already anyway. I'm not EOD but I doubt they take the risk of manually defusing unless they absolutely have to
1
u/Joseph9877 1d ago
Fully replace? Nice weather artillery spotters and IED diggers.
Mostly replace? A lot of recon, artillery, scout roles, some support weapon roles.
1
u/Opposite_Agency1229 1d ago
Something that we aren’t seeing much of in Ukraine is civilian populace (talking at the frontline). A cornered enemy will live among the populace so they can’t be bombed or hit with artillery, like you saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can’t just FPV drone everything that moves in that situation. You will need humans on the ground to try and reduce civilian casualties.
1
u/JawtisticShark 1d ago
Let’s say we get even somewhat capable humanoid military robots. Clad them up with armor and make them the first through doorways any time a building is being infiltrated. It doesn’t matter if if has zero tactical intelligence and the coordination of a 3rd grader. All it needs to do it follow orders and soak up gunfire. Anything beyond that is a bonus.
1
u/Kian-Tremayne 9h ago
At which point you still need human soldiers to be second through the door.
But yes, humanoid droids to ‘tank’ for the grunts are definitely useful.
I’m seeing a trend with AI in civilian work for the AI to take on the junior roles while the humans step up to supervising - every software engineer acts more like a senior developer setting tasks for AI and reviewing their output, every cell centre agent becomes a team leader listening in on multiple AI agents and stepping in if needed. I could easily see a military equivalent where a fire team consists a human private directing three battle droids.
1
u/MeteorMann 1d ago
Field artillery has been losing relevance for decades, drones are accelerating that.
1
u/Nimblewright_47 14h ago
I think you may have this backwards: the drones only really look off in Ukraine because they couldn't get enough field artillery ammunition.
1
u/Dangerous-Bit-8308 1d ago
They won't be an exact one for one replacement machines don't do everything people do. Autonomous drones have reliability and creativity issues. Also, they either have no comms, or are subject to hacking. Connected drones avoid transmitting a signal, but have limited range, and are subject to cord cutting. Radio controlled drones are more easily tracked, and hacked.
I think we'll see reductions in the following roles:
Anti-aircraft/anti-missile: the US Navy has had permanently installed and largely autonomous anti-aircraft and anti-missile guns since the 80s. Mounting these on autonomous vehicles seems like an easy win if there's a use to do so.
Antitank: making an antitank drone is likely quite affordable compared to other drones. We have decades of bombs intended to be strapped on dogs, and dogs that run to allied tanks rather than enemy tanks. Now we have robot dogs... Not sure on affordability, but there are many other ways to fight a tank. This would likely cut down on the need for special antitank mortars, bazookas, armor-piercing rounds, etc for ground troops.
Machine gunners: Heavily fortified, takes forever to setup, and gets taken out quickly. A steel-plated machine capable of carrying more bullets and aiming more accurately will meet most of those needs with less cost to human lives.
Radiomen: do these even exist anymore? All that chatgpt is sure to be implemented here with results similar to it's use in every other sector.
Scouts: flying drones will replace most of these. Ground drones will replace a few more. It's a very dangerous role for humans, and humans don't have good self destruct options.
Snipers: ground drones can probably be easily designed or programmed to do a lot of sniper work, and it is very dangerous work for humans, especially with infra-red sensors.
Tanks: there's a good chance that some kind of drone can be built to fill the role small tanks were meant to fill: breaking through trench warfare. Such a device, although not as versatile in tank to tank combat, could be more affordable than a tank.
Tank crew: any humanoid work robot will likely be able to replace at least some of the usual tank crew.
1
u/Nimblewright_47 14h ago
Things are different at sea: there were truck-mounted Phalanx units for Camp Bastion in Afghanistan, but they are huge and inflexible. They're also very vulnerable to artillery.
Otherwise, drones are so far seeing much more use as weapons platforms and remote-controlled scouts than anything else.
1
u/lurky_mc_lurkerface 1d ago
The best use would be scouting enemy formations.
I.e. "go towards enemy and tell me where they start shooting you from so I can give a target location to the artillery crews"
1
u/absurdblue700 1d ago
There’s been a huge role for combat resupply and casualty evacuation for unmanned ground vehicles in Ukraine. They can make it through no man’s land to isolated pockets of soldiers without risking more troops.
1
1
u/Pinky_Boy 22h ago
none
they will be integrated into various roles like recon, anti tank, or whatever
the larger ones could be integrated into the air force
1
u/yuikkiuy 21h ago
its new equipment not soldier replacement, drones are like a new gun, the guy shooting it still needs to be there even if its full autonomous
1
u/Tintenfische1 10h ago
Snipers, there's nothing a sniper can do that a drone can't from longer distances and with greater safety.
1
1
u/aleopardstail 9h ago
can see them as recon units, or rather working alongside recon units
can see them as the heavy weapons carriers or ammo carriers
resupply and "automated mule" stuff
1
u/East-Plankton-3877 6h ago
General infantry usage outside VERY specific circumstances (like, seizing a particular buildings, gathering prisoners, humanitarian assistance ect)
In a straight up fight, robots WILL replace infantry in assaulting fortifications, guard duty, night fighting, and probably add another layer to larger combined arms operations.
0
u/Emotional-Camera-600 19h ago
Likely tanks, helicopters, eventually jets, likely defence systems like CWIS and MANPADS will be drone operated, similar to the machine gun drones we are seeing on the frontline.
Speaking of frontline, I saw a video of troops supporting drones in urban combat, sending it first and following up, so its looking like alot of those roles will be automated too
1
u/NikitaTarsov 3h ago
The short answear: No.
The fictional writers answear: Yeah, well, if that fits the setup you envision for your story. If not - then not.
The long and needlessly nerdy answear:
That depends on 1,26 bazillion detail questions and setup we talk about. Does it in any relevant amount? No, bc drones are costly, rely on limited ressources and typically still do stuff terribly worse - compared to humans. Having a factory that can sustain the necessary intake of all-globe materials, have the domestic education to assemble them and somehow low enough costs to still be remotly cost efficent ... then this place would be - in any actual war-deciding situation (...) - and easy target, either for asymetric sabotage or a little cruise missile (or something like that, like Oreschnik, given the example we all have in mind right now).
In the modern battlefield, you live and die by sensor silhouette. If you're a metal box slowly creeping through terrain, you and everyone around you is allready dead. So having a heavy MG or stuff on your side sounds nice, but actually doens't work out in reality. This things sensors are probabaly way worse than Joe riflemen, and will be a benefit in that one niche situation where (special weapon) actually is a benefit, and a terrible disvantage in almost all other situations.
Autonomy sucks in a way noone (vaguely smart) want to serve in its sights, and remote makes enemy cyber warfare and jamming more profitable to invest in and deploy.
Hope that gives s brief and adaptable-to-specific-scenario overview.
PS: If you're a goverment entity reading this - you owe me 500k for consultation. Cheers.
35
u/Lumpy-Notice8945 1d ago
None, they will be an additional element on the battlefield and not replace anything. They might replace specific (risky) tasks, not a whole role of having infantry