What will surprise us in the next big war?

[Nemesis]

1) You can't predict it. Maybe there is a low tech way of defeating a Trophy APS for example?

4) Different radars (X-band) e.g., are apparently getting better at detecting stealth. Infra red search and track (IRST) systems and visual systems (that can magnify the sky and see then differences in it) are also getting better and at longer and longer ranges.

 

[chiquichops]

What about cloaking technology against optics and even the naked eye, creating in effect an invisible soldier/vehicle. That would be a real game changer if it could be developed.

 

[Bulletpoint]

10) Aircraft are swept from the skies. Aircraft cannot dodge AA missiles. There is no close air support. Artillery provides indirect fire.

11) Counterbattery fire becomes a death dance. Units that fire will take immediate counterbattery fire.

If we combine these two points, wouldn't that very quickly lead to artillery (on both sides) taking much heavier losses than in previous wars, and then leaving the battles effectively without any support apart from direct fire weapons?

Or maybe rather than both sides' artillery knocking each other out, one of the sides would gain artillery dominance early in the war - maybe due to a slight initial advantage or simply small events of luck - and that would then snowball quickly until that side gained total artillery supremacy? Which could very quickly decide the war because of modern artillery's extremely fast reaction times and accuracy.

 

[Nemesis]

If we combine these two points, wouldn't that very quickly lead to artillery (on both sides) taking much heavier losses than in previous wars, and then leaving the battles effectively without any support apart from direct fire weapons?

Or maybe rather than both sides' artillery knocking each other out, one of the sides would gain artillery dominance early in the war - maybe due to a slight initial advantage or simply small events of luck - and that would then snowball quickly until that side gained total artillery supremacy? Which could very quickly decide the war because of modern artillery's extremely fast reaction times and accuracy.

That is a great point.

One mitigating factor. APS systems might be able to shoot down incoming shells/missiles. So artillery may be more survivable.

It is really hard to predict any of this.

A huge component of this is the ability to mass produce high tech weapons. Whoever can do that will do well.

 

[sspoom]

someone will knock down all the gps satelites and we will be back low tech in no time

 

[Bulletpoint]

someone will knock down all the gps satelites and we will be back low tech in no time

I'm wondering if any side would allow their satellites to be taken out without escalating to nuclear though.

 

[sspoom]

I work in heavy industry in the united states......industry that has (arguably won two world wars) and this scares me....

If the enemy can do this in the street the first world is screwed when the satelites fall

 

[Bulletpoint]

I work in heavy industry in the united states......industry that has (arguably won two world wars) and this scares me....

If the enemy can do this in the street the first world is screwed when the satelites fall

That giant hammer thing seems like some kind of a death trap out of a James Bond movie..

 

[Butschi]

Assuming the war did not turn nuclear.

Imho this is already an invalid assumption. If both sides have nuclear weapons, then, in a major war, not using those weapons is not an option. They are a deterrent and once you don't use them the other side will know you don't have the guts to use them and they stop being a deterrent. Having the possibility to somehow keep a major war conventional was an illusion NATO somehow managed to believe in during the later years of the cold war. The Soviets never did.

That said, I don't think there will be any major war between nations with nuclear weapons for the forseeable future. At least not when both sides have people with at least some sanity left at the top... yeah... Well, either that or - and that would maybe be the game changer you were thinking about - weapons are development that render nuclear weapons useless. And these would have to come as a surprise because otherwise there will be that one very dangerous moment where one side realizes that it has to strike now or be vulnerable.

But I agree, for us armchair generals, nukes are pretty boring.

 

[Gunsalot]

So the scenario is both powers launch their nukes and both have hidden, secret counter measures that render them harmless. What follows is an all out conventionalish war.

The skies are purged of aircraft, because what ever can knock out nukes can clean out the aircraft as well.

What follows is a mad scramble in electronic warfare as both sides play orbital jockey trying to knock out each others satalites. Signal jamming and crypto tango are crucial.

To bypass the EW handicap, quantity trumps quality. Massive dumb rocket strikes would be used to overwhelm counter missile measure. Communication infrastructure would be targeted to retard command and control.

The return of the battleship, massive mobile gun and rocket platforms, heavily armored and bigger than the midgets of WW2.

DISCLAIMER! - I have not studied modern warfare that much and have not speculated much on future warfare. These are just the idle fantasies of bored dude at work.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

I think AI has evolved to the point that the unmanned wingman will become the rule, not the exception. Did you all see the report last week of the AI aircraft versus a manned fighter? The AI aircraft won every battle. I also see autonomous subs playing a huge role in ASW warfare. And I foresee lasers becoming a prominent weapon system, especially for anti-air and anti-missile defenses, as the speed of light is faster than hypersonic. And yes, hypersonic will Become a prominent technology. The problem with hypersonic is that a false launch detection will be very dangerous, as the decision to respond to a perceived attack will be a window of 2-3 minutes, unlike the 10-15 the big powers have now.

As for the nuclear option, don’t fool yourselves, they are still on the table. I think it’s pretty much common knowledge nowadays that all those fighter bombers sitting on alert pads during the Cold War had tactical nuke ordinance loaded, as did the Soviets. If the balloon went up it was going nuke from day one. The Russian doctrine saw tactical nukes as just bigger artillery and that’s how they planned to use it. NATO would have had no choice but to do the same. I think that logic might hold true in the present day.

Cyberwarfare is going to be huge. Look st STUXNET, look at ransomware, and then think how you would use something like that strategically. The possibilities are endless.

GPS is vulnerable, but so are our potential adversaries' constellations as well. So space will be a vital battlefield because he who owns the high ground wins.

As for chemical weapons, I read in the book “Operation Paperclip” that the western allies captured a German production facility that had 180000 tons of nerve gas. That would have been enough to kill every soldier, man, woman, and child in England, Scotland, and Wales with enough left over to kill off another country or two. But Hitler forbade its use for the reason previously given. I see lesser countries using it against neighbors and maybe against a superpower. The problem with using chemicals against a big power is that they are “weapons of mass destruction” and a big power will respond in kind.

And last but not least, look at COVID? It’s a naturally occurring virus, but I think everyone here can recognize the potential for germ/virus warfare. It’s chilling to think about, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Imho this is already an invalid assumption. If both sides have nuclear weapons, then, in a major war, not using those weapons is not an option.

We generally agree on this. I know it's a pretty big assumption. But just for the sake of the argument, maybe that's one of the things that will in fact surprise us - that our assumption that nuclear weapons prevent major wars turns out to be false.

They are a deterrent and once you don't use them the other side will know you don't have the guts to use them and they stop being a deterrent.

I think this might be the key question. Both sides will have red lines that will trigger a nuclear response. And both sides know that. But neither side wants that to happen.

But if we imagine China and the USA getting into a fight outside of the home territories of both countries, I am thinking that maybe there could actually be a lot of warfare happening without a nuclear escalation. As long as both sides still think they have a chance, it would not be rational to escalate. We won't see WW2 scale warfare though, with countries invaded and fighting all the way to the end.

 

[Bulletpoint]

The problem with using chemicals against a big power is that they are “weapons of mass destruction” and a big power will respond in kind.

There's a big grey area though. Like when the USA said that Syria using chemical weapons would be a red line. They crossed that line, but the US did nothing. Russia then moved in and took control.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

There's a big grey area though. Like when the USA said that Syria using chemical weapons would be a red line. They crossed that line, but the US did nothing. Russia then moved in and took control.

True, very true. But they didn't actually attack US forces with them. Semantics play a big part in "diplomacy"...

 

[Bulletpoint]

True, very true. But they didn't actually attack US forces with them.

That's also true. But I doubt the US would respond with nuclear weapons if a US base in the Middle East were to be hit by a chemical weapon.

 

[HOA_KSOP]

That's also true. But I doubt the US would respond with nuclear weapons if a US base in the Middle East were to be hit by a chemical weapon.

Yes, I agree. But neither would Russia. The calculus always has to factor in the other big powers and their probable response and the court of world opinion. But I think the US would respond with massive force.

 

[Ithikial]

- Cyberwarfare on a scale we haven't seen.
- The above may force belligerents to 'dumb down' their equipment to an extent to keep fighting.
- Entire battles with no living person involved on one side or both. Drones and robots.

 

[Bulletpoint]

But I think the US would respond with massive force.

First some cruise missiles. Then angry rhetoric. Then business as usual. That's what I think would happen.

A bit like the Iranian response to the US assassination of their top general.

 

[greyfox]

Wrt GPS satellites, the threat to them is such that at the very least the US military is working on navigation systems based on the x-rays emitted by pulsars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_pulsar-based_navigation

 

[nektoman]

I don't know about big war but I think that old tanks and IFVs can be converted into unmanned drones filled with explosive (similar to Syrian experience). They can even be controlled using wire (like ATGMs). This can be a mass weapon (considering number of old vehicles in every country).