The future is here. Don't get cocky.
Now here is something that the Infantry will just love: the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System is on the ground in Afghanistan. This weapon puts smart technology at the Infantry squad level, and should enable the squad to achieve the same effects - or even better - as indirect fire at a fraction of the time, expense, and risk. The essence of the weapon is its ability to laze a target and then fire a smart projectile which can detonate several meters ahead of or behind the target, effectively robbing an enemy of his protective cover. While it's no lightweight at 12 pounds, it's a vast improvement over the heavier, slower mortar.
I am all for technological advances that give us the edge. But I also feel that a note of caution is in order. Any time there is a quantum leap in battlefield technology, two things will happen: the enemy will develop countermeasures, and military developers everywhere will attempt to copy, steal, or reverse-engineer the technology for their own advantage (all the easier if you have a captured or stolen weapon for this purpose).
It's a little disconcerting to read that the US military appears a bit complacent about the threat of proliferation of the technology, based on the notions that the specialized projectiles and batteries will be hard to obtain, and that the technology will be expensive to copy and produce. Since when have such obstacles stood in the way of, say, China or Russia? And since when have they had any compunction about weapons sales? No, once a genie is out of a bottle, there is little telling where it will end up.
And that brings us to countermeasures. Not only those that the enemy may develop against our use of the weapon, but that we should be working on right now in preparation for the inevitable day when we are not the only ones on the battlefield with these things.
The very first thing I think of with a technically complex system like this is: electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Our growing dependence on computer processing, and our complacency about their reliability, is a nagging concern. I have seen our military electronic equipment shift, over the years, away from nuclear-hardened, specialized models to commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items. Lighter, cheaper, easier to upgrade and update - that's all great until EMP destroys your computers, radios, navigation and targeting systems in the heat of battle. We are nowhere near capable of carrying out our missions manually any more, not even clumsily or slowly. It is a glaring weak spot, as yet unexploited, but a weapon like the XM25 only encourages the development of an EMP generator as a countermeasure; and that would counter not only the XM25, but all other electronic assets.
The next thing that occurs to me is: jamming. This weapon uses a wireless connection to program each round with distance data as it is fired downrange. What if that signal were disrupted? Will the weapon still fire? Will the projectile still explode? For that matter, can an errant signal misprogram the projectiles? Jamming has been around since radios hit the battlefield. I hope the XM25 has some sort of shielding against this, or our newest technology might be impeded by a very old technique.
The final thing that I think about with technically complex systems is not a countermeasure, but is a concern: malfunctions, especially software glitches. If our cars can get them, so can weapons. Can the XM25 get wet or be submerged? Is it sensitive to dust? We will soon find out, as it writes its own record in Afghanistan.
I am all for bringing the biggest, best, and brightest tech to bear on the enemy, but I also believe in diversification of assets: we will always benefit from having the old rifles, carbines, and mortars on the battlefield as well. Especially if somebody develops a portable EMP.
Copyright R.N. Phillips, December 2010
Posts
