Shrinking Army Studies Buying Robots to Replace Soldiers

Shrinking Army Studies Buying Robots to Replace Soldiers

The U.S. Army, downsizing after more than a decade of war, is considering replacing discharged soldiers with robots and drones, according to a news report.

Gen. Robert Cone, commander of Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Eustis, Va., said the service may decrease the headcount of brigade combat teams to about 3,000 soldiers from roughly 4,000 soldiers in coming years and replace the lost manpower with unmanned systems, writes Paul McLeary of Defense News.

“I’ve got clear guidance to think about what if you could robotically perform some of the tasks in terms of maneuverability, in terms of the future of the force,” the four-star general said at last week’s aviation symposium organized by the Association of the United States Army, according to the article.

While Cone reportedly talked about the possibility of using lighter, less armored unmanned ground vehicles to follow manned platforms into combat, such an application might still be decades away. Due in part to automatic budget cuts, the Defense Department is actually decreasing research and development funding for unmanned systems this year by more than than a third, or $1.3 billion.

“We knew budgets would be declining,” Dyke Weatherington, the Pentagon’s director of unmanned warfare and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, recently told Military​.com in an interview. “I don’t think two years ago we understood how significant the down slope was going to be so this road map much more clearly addresses the fiscal challenges,” he said, referring to the department’s latest report on the future of unmanned systems.

What’s more, the vast majority of the U.S. military’s requested drone funding isn’t for ground systems. The Pentagon’s $4.1 billion budget request for unmanned systems this year includes $3.7 billion for air systems, $330 million for maritime systems and $13 million for ground systems, according to budget documents.

Still, the Pentagon’s inventory of unmanned ground systems are slated to increase beginning in 2016 and companies are working with the military to develop the next-generation technology for any number of applications, from defusing bombs to clearing routes to carrying supplies, according to the department’s so-called road map.

Bedford, Mass.-based iRobot Corp., for example, has built a suite of ground robots for infantry troops and explosive ordnance disposal technicians, including the FirstLook, SUGV (Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle) and PackBot.

The Army, meanwhile, is expected to shrink from more than a half a million active-duty soldiers today to around 420,000 soldiers by 2019. That figure, however, may eventually fall to as low as 380,000 if automatic budget cuts known as sequestration remain in effect, Pentagon officials have said.

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

A lot more study needs to be done before substituting robots for people. How many people will it take to maintain and service these robots? How many contractors? At what annual cost? This probably hasn’t been well thought through yet. I’m not sure anything the Army does right now is a position suitable for conversion to robot power other than aerial surveillance. After all, we’re not talking about Robocop or Terminator quite yet.

The Telegraph also featured a story on the subject. http://​www​.telegraph​.co​.uk/​n​e​w​s​/​u​k​n​e​w​s​/​d​e​f​e​n​c​e​/10

While the concept is worthy of exploration one must be extremely wary of the technophiles who fail to address real world issues. Robot trucks are a great idea but who does basic maintenance? Today a truck has one operator to do the before, during and after maintenance. Multiply that by robotic trucks and the demands of routine maintenance quickly becomes insurmountable. How do robotic vehicles defend themselves with no operator let alone respond to situations where they have to drive around a damaged vehicle? What happens when the live operators are killed and the whole convoy is stopped? These were all issues that haunted FCS and were often wished away with the yet to be created “autonomous” software.

The Navy’s effort to “unman” ships like the LCS is a cautionary tale we haven’t yet paid the price on yet because we haven’t fought an enemy capable of damaging our ships. The lower number of sailors depletes our ability to do damage control or maintain that effort long enough to get to a safe port.

Robots & technology are great but beware willy nilly enthusiasm that ignores many realities of the battlefield the geeks have never been on.

What a great way to get more defense contractors involved. Let’s get some robot development contracts started right away. At the typical defense contractor development rate we should have robots ready to go in 30 years. Of course, they’ll be crap and won’t do 1/10th of what they were supposed to do requiring a follow on contract that lasts another 10 years to get these robots to do half of what they were supposed to do. And by the time the follow on contract is just about done and it’s time to produce robots there will be a major political push to terminate the robot contracts which will magically end just on the eve of the defense contractors having to assemble the first robot, but what the hell, it’s all good. The US taxpayer gets f’ed up the ass for one more major development program, the contractor makes record profits, and not a single weapon gets produced. Sounds to me like every other DoD program we pay for these days.

And some people here on this board are totally clueless, clueless I say, with respect to the benefits of and barriers to automation. And we as an Army have been working on this for a long, long time. I know one retired Lieutenant General, a former corps commander, who started his career as an engineer officer and did his post company command time with the Armor and Engineer Board testing robotics concepts — but that guy was such a good leader that the Army put him back on the command track and he never saw one combat developments assignment again. Remember Battle Management System (BMS) ? Combat Vehicle Command and Control (CVCC) and its younger son, IVIS ? If the Army were not run by technological troglodytes, we’d have more of these capabilities in place right now. Need I mention the MULE Countermine and MULE Transport variants ? So all you naysayers can just bite my dust — this cannot be stopped.

And, speaking of FCS, I cannot help crow a little bit about GCV’s ongoing demise.

What ever happens, the Germans have got,
the Puma vehicle, And We Have Not

Wake up and smell the coffee, Army. You are getting screwed again.

This sounds like the beginning a multi billion dollar disaster like the littoral combat ship and the F-35!

This has to be tested on long term.We can drop off soldiers and they walk to secure our perimeter to advice .They could do it but dont take away our troops..

Yeah replace men with less reliable and inferior drones that work against Russia and China more of the drone fad crap at play.

For every new weapon, there’s ALWAYS a counter-weapon, then a counter-counter-weapon and so on. Will these war ‘bots be made in China? “Omni Consumer Products, where war robots are our business.…and business is good! So pony up America.” We’ll be having a new war every other week, if mommy and daddy America don’t have to send their baby girls and boys into harms way. Semper Fi

Like I said technology is great… when it works. The FCS MULE was awesome in simulation when a human mind was substituted for its “autonomous” software but the snake oil salesmen could never deliver and a decade later still haven’t. That’s why the system was scrapped in total (I don’t know what you mean by the countermine/transport variants that never left the drafting board). The few different robots that were fielded are pale shadows of the pie in the sky FCS MULE concepts and have ZERO relation to that program.

I believe we should always push the envelope. The dreamers who think we’ll replace 25% of the warfighters in combat BDE’s anytime in the near future are necessary to advance technology but need to be confined to the labs where they’ll do no harm. Like Land Warrior, a concept from the 60’s, whose champions wanted to field immediately yet were thankfully stymied by those who understood the battlefield. Fruition is arriving almost half a century later with NETT Warrior and maybe still too early because NETT Warrior doesn’t tie in with mounted element software.

We’ll see the same pie in the sky vs. reality phenomena with TALOS, son of Future Force Warrior and Objective Force Warrior (descendants of previous programs themselves). Dreaming is ok just don’t confuse dreams with reality.

The GCV is fraught with issues too heavy & expensive being the killers. The Puma is decided. It doesn’t carry the nine man squad. The Germans bereft of any significant armored combat experience are making the same mistake we made with the Bradley, not enough grunts. It makes little sense to buy a vehicle just marginally better than the Bradley and continue to make the same mortal mistake.

VP, there’s a big difference between automating a command and control process and replacing a soldier with a robot. They’re not even comparable. MajRod’s comment is about whole weapon systems while yours is about new computers and interfaces. Give me a better computer and I can fight better. Put a new machine on the battlefield and odds are I need contractors to maintain it. We’ve added thousands of UAVs, EOD robots like in the pic above, and even experimented with replacing sentries with robots, but none of those systems were really a replacement for manpower. The UAVs took pilots out of the air, but added ground crews to maintain them. The EOD and sentry robots needed men behind the stick and additional personnel to fix them. I have no issue with the Army making the effort, but we have yet to prove it’s a simple matter of swapping them one for one.

The Army is making a huge mistake by relying on electrical powered and computer operated unmanned systems..either ground or airborne. The systems are capable of EMP or sunspot disruption. And if a unit is under attack, well you get the idea.

And how many people and how much money does it take to maintain the troops?The troops have to be housed,fed,paid and given health care.Robots do not.Sure,lets send a flesh-and-blood trooper to dismantle that IED. And when it blows him up we can give his family a flag and a “Thank you for his sacrifice”.

Why don’t we make this a better idea… buy robots instead of Admirals!

Well if you can think about replacing some soldier with robots, they will consider replacing all soldiers. To keep taking the human element out of the military will make it into a video game. Hopefully they will never consider having AI controlled robots and weapon systems.

one of the problems is that everything is being computerized that is one of the reasons why there is a lot of unemployment.

How many systems have become obsolete before, or shortly thereafter, they were delivered to the military?

Anyone remember when a drone was hacked and the driver lost control? The government has proven it cannot secure our private “secure” information or prevent hacking. What happens when a drone or groundbot gets hacked and turned on our own troops? As to your “fad crap”.…just look what projects are getting the lion’s share of the Pentagon’s $4.1 billion budget.… request for unmanned systems this year includes $3.7 billion for air systems, $330 million for maritime systems and $13 million for ground systems.

More important, soldiers may refuse unlawful commands. Robots couldn’t even think of it.

Admirals are easily bought — a little hooch, a little cash, a little hottie — whatever LOL

and Skynet rubs it’s electronic hands.…. “any day now, any day…”

yeah, and wheelwrights can’t seem to find a job these days either


Sooner or later our effective combat forces will be so small that they will be easily overwhelmed by an opponent. All the technology in the world won’t help you when AK-47 rounds are flying in your direction from a superior force of troops…

People and their ability are what makes an Army, not technology , robots, and drones. In the end you cannot occupy and hold territory with robots.…

Clone Wars it isn’t..

If you think that a machine can replace humans your nuts. Man is superior because of one simple fact we react from knowledge and experience. There is no computer fastest enough or large enough to compare with the human brain and it’s coping and reacting abilities. I don’t know what it is with the military fascination with people selling them the idea that computers can do it all. I’ve worked in Operations at Sqd. Plt. Co. Bn. Bde. and Div. level and you know what ? Even at Div. level we used cartoons to do scenarios for the Cmdr’s intent and manuevre portion of the Operations Order. We should think about that when you expect a computer to think like the 4 or 5 people who are going to interpret the order and make the adjustments to complete the commanders intent. Think about it.

The future is WALL-E.

and Robocop.…

When it comes to computers, robots, & whole unmanned armies. I have some questions: 1. What happens if/when the enemy steals the keys? 2. What happens if/when the things we built to keep us safe are turned against us? 3. What happens if/when these robots become self-aware and perceive all humans as a threat.? (Terminator).

Also there’s The Laws of Robotics: 0. A robot may not harm humanity, or,
by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

1. A robot may not injure a human
being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders
given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict
with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own
existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the
First or Second Law.

4. A robot must establish its
identity as a robot in all cases.

5. A robot must reproduce. As long
as such reproduction does not interfere with the First or Second or
Third Law.

6. A robot must know it is a robot.

7. All robots endowed with comparable human reason and conscience should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

So these laws preclude using robots as even support for military operations since by carrying ammunition to the front, or maintaining military equipment, or feeding soldiers, etc. they are contributing indirectly to the carnage which is prohibited. So let’s short circuit the whole project and forget the idea… until they are used against us.

The idea of being attacked by a rogue or enemy inspired semi-sentient armored airborne robot with a killing device traveling at bullet speeds maneuvering with gee forces hundred of times greater than I or any human can stand, let alone train a counter weapon upon effectively is daunting? … no, its nightmarish.

Makes it easier for the government to kill its citizens if it can be done with a button and an evil mind.

******Hey,Hey wash-out…next.…Coming Soon ****The New Contractors Army.

I’m i really missing somethings.….talking about saving money.…What a joke

Welcome to ****The All New Contract Army+++

Hey DOD are you taking your medical everyday.….i don’t think so,look like your Sugar level has drop..

If not you need to,go to the nearest “”“Hospital real soon or ““Call 911.

A couple of decades ago, it was developed a weapon in the US.
This was during the good old days of the Cold War.
This weapon was essentially a “gas” that did not hurt humans.
What it did was very very different.
This gas when taken in an engine intake, would cause the engine to start running at a very very high rate of speed.
So fast that the operator could not turn the engine off.
What it did, was cause the engine to run so fast, that it would start to tear itself apart.
Now, think of that.
A military vehicle that would not run.
A whole armor division stopped dead in it’s tracks.
Same with the support vehicles.
Same with the infantry transportation vehicle.
The enemy army would find it self having to walk.

Of course it was killed by the Generals because, well, it simply didn’t go BOOM!
Go figure.…

where’s that resume at? ROBOT BUILDER — cool title


We were supposed to have neutron bombs and Assault Breaker to stop the Soviet hordes.

Asimov’s three and the zeroth law probably prevent their battlefield use. Maybe as unarmed medics and as human shields?

We have to get to the point where operating and maintaining computers is nothing special. That is why our entire force generation approach has to include mobilizing trainable people with the right set of skills. Our old industrial age “one size fits all approach” to personnel management just has to go away. That is one reason this downsizing cycle is especially painful. It is not about preserving end strength, it is about building capability for future conflicts. We can’t do that unless we treat our people right. But modernization cannot be stopped, and you should not even try.

“Shrinking Army Studies Buying Robots to Replace Soldiers“________________________Errr…Sure.…Why Not!!!!

And from what I’ve seen there is a 1:1 ratio to operate these “unmanned” devices. Someone, a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airmen, is controlling it. While they are “unmanned” they are not autonymous.

Me, I think robotics are ‘OK’ as long as they yield a decrease in logistical support requirements and an increase in speed (edit: as in a decrease in time required to accomplish their assigned mission), maneuverability, and/or firepower under combat conditions.

And cannot be defeated by simple measures like jamming and/or EMP.

Ask yourself the same question on how many people are needed to support the common solider in the field. I bet you probably would be surprised to learn that the numbers are about the same. With my knowledge of how manufacturing is quickly running the gamut of automation and the streamlining of this activity for efficiency and cost savings I would bet that robotic troops in the long run WILL cost the government less. Considering the very high costs attributed to lifesaving criteria with CSIs and SOF as well as durability factors, robotics just sweetens the pot. When the machines have completed their mission or usage it’s cannibalized for parts and scrap for use elsewhere, with no worry or expense in paying for their retirement.

Factoring the importance of the mission over troop lives the military could take greater risks by sending in robots and drones into severe hostile areas. It would give us an intense advantage since now the only thing command would have to worry about would be the cost of the equipment. A cost that may pay itself out in dividends if the mission is a success and done in a timely manner.

Listen guys the handwriting is on the wall robotics is here to stay where even the machines are being designed, programmed and made by, you guessed it, machines. Read “Physics of the Future” by Dr. Michio Kaku for a glimpse of how our world may end up, where no one works and Welfarite socialism is the accepted way of life.

Now if you want to be political, you can slow the process down a bit a and tell your congressman to dump sequestration or vote out the Repubs since they love this spending cut nonsense tactic so much, and money can continue to support human troops over robots.

Two more points here. .I did not interpret this thread as just deploying robots as “stand-alone” systems, in effect surrogate human beings. We are already way beyond that, and in a sense not there yet. I read through most of Trainor’s “End Game”, and during his account of the surge in Iraq, over and over again, the theme came through — (1) not enough units or men to cover the battlespace, (2) IEDs everywhere, (3) no maneuver room (I found this kind of mystifying, even in a MOUT context — result, US commanders fighting an attrition battle over and over again. And I couldn’t help think to myself: Where are the sensors ? the UAVs ? What good we do in this situation with ground mobile robots ? I mean, the trade space between clearing an IED field with unmanned systems and a B-1 airstrike is pretty gross. I can’t believe the current force is too stupid to know how to deploy a sensor field, when the enemy’s clever shaping of the battlefield using IEDs — how primitive is that — gets written in the history books.

I find this sick. We should never take humans out of war period. I find that how much computer malfunction and can be hacked means we be at mercy from the computers nets. Its madness to do this crap. How about a malfunction and you get a lot of friendly fire. Someone need s to fire this Gen Cone.

Skynet is coming next????

Is it just me or does it just appear the our government doesn’t want to have to take care of our Veterans who are putting their lives on the line for us each and everyday. It’s cheaper just to repair a robot and eventually dispose of them whereas the government would have to take care of these brave men and women for the rest of their lives. To me is sounds like the government has no value for human life. As a military vet myself I am sickened and disgusted that our government would even consider such a thing.

Crazy but let Tops play “Darkvader” and waste more of their budgets. Also, Loose more battles to under armed ground fighters placing U.S. Homeland in harms way too.

>Robots & technology are great but beware willy nilly enthusiasm that ignores many realities of the battlefield the geeks have never been on.

majr0d, as a geek I agree with you.

But I’d say that all these failed project are mostly cause by unrealistic expectation in term of capability, and the overall FAT defence coroporate model.

The concept of a completely autonomous robotized workforce is a dream and should stay a dream for at least another 30 years. But to have an AI looking for potential treat, which wouldn’t be much more than an improved system that got an AI under the hood (would it be considered an AI?). Or in the case of an aircraft, it could just know where to hit, and the AI decide which how to get there. Properly programmed they will have an advantage that any human could hardly match: the ability to analyze data and always react in milisecond. The only human whom will have the last word over it is the one who adapt; a software upgrade may be required. But we can’t see infrared, X-ray; we can’t see through wall, our language does not permit do analyze dynamic information (i.e. new info via radio communication) as fast as a machine.

A good example would be intercepting a missile. Machines are an all time winner. Everything is too fast, a missile may adapt its trajectory as soon as a change occur. We would just take too much time here.

The biggest problem that I see through innovation came from our desire to distance ourself from communism to a point of fanatism. A war with no war measure, where everybody gets rich except the state. An economic model where private corporation are more inclined to go in the space than the nasa. On 1 hand you got the darpa that make contest for creating autonomious software. That’s really great, ideally you got a lot of students working hard to solve that problem. But then, all the foundation that the darpa worked hard to build moved to private contractor where they finally got a solution to one of these problems. Everybody is happy and a truckload of money is going to the contractor.

The problem? Everything sudently get too expensive to build and I wonder why.

On the other hand, that’s not the only culprit of such high cost. I think it also came from the level of reliability requested, which may not always be necessary. By not necessary, I don’t mean an AWACS or anything that a malfunction mean death.

But for something like sensors, I would rater have quantity than quality. That is, I would prefer a system that can find an ied 75% of the times and cover all the battlefield than one that works 95% of the time but that can only protect 1,000 yrds from your base because it’s too big, too complex and too expensive.

That’s a dilemma, I don’t think there is a best good answer here but we should really be more flexible on this.

Asking for everything and trying to create multirole or even ALL role systems is definitely part of the problem.

Targeting/tracking software is exponentially more difficult when it comes to the ground fight which is why it has advanced the least. Missile tracking software is simple compared to all the clutter, cover, camouflage, unpredictable trajectories and IFF factors ground targets (especially people) can take.

Contrary to popular belief the dismounted ground fight is the most difficult to automate. Note that simulations of ground systems especially the human being are the least developed and ground robots only account for .3% of the budget.

Reliability requested is also a function of our hyper sensitivity to casualties. While you may accept a 75% solution the American public and its politicians do not which why casualty aversion has become a strategic weakness for the US. It drives everything from combat system design to how much body armor we make soldiers wear whether they need it or not. The Generals frankly don’t have the guts to tell America what war is actually like and instead fight it as the politicians desire causing decades long conflicts.

I think your perspective is right on the account of managing cost and addressing real world issues that software technology may find impassable. What I do admire about the idea is the fact that if such a technology were to be deployed, our service men and women would be placed in a safer environment that reduces the injuries or deaths that we currently see in the conflicts we are engaged in. My point is, it may cost more money in the long run, but I am all for keeping people employed and out of harms way, because precious life to family and loved ones is priceless. In addition, a study may reveal that the long term benefits outweighs the cost wherein life is preserved, and we may not have to spend millions in veterans injuries and disability benefits.

With 10 years military service, I feel more than capable to speak to this subject. Here we go, are you kidding me. Replace a soldier with a robot? Can the robots hide, shoot back, crouch, determine which way gunfire is coming from? Are they self sufficient? After you’ve told soldiers that they are being replaced by robots and it doesn’t work, can we call these soldiers that we’ve drop kicked back after we’ve deserted them? No because there are defense contractors out there making plans and pulling in the big bucks without thought for what will benefit everyone possibly. To sum it up, you can’t and shouldn’t replace a human with a robot. Has anyone written a letter to a robot lately?

Roger, Roger. Hey, let’s have the best of both worlds and make a clone army. No one cares about clones.

This article accounts for $46 billion in cancelled programs. Then add about $6 billion for C-130 AMP. Who knows how many billion were wasted on GCV and the fun’s not over yet with that one. F-22 stopped at 170 airplanes so it wouldn’t threaten the F-35 development program should count. Of course, F-35 will probably get cancelled before a single jet is built, if Lockheed does their job right. Maybe Boeing managed to f up the P-8 so badly the Navy will cancel that program before it goes into production. And each time that happens some flock of idiots will come here and write how lucky the feel that another program has been cancelled. Clearly Americans are too stupid to keep their own money. They should be forced to give it all to defense contractors.

Forgot the link to the article: http://​defensetech​.org/​2​0​1​1​/​0​7​/​1​9​/​4​6​-​b​i​l​l​i​o​n​-​w​ort

LCS! I forgot LCS. Surely that one will get cancelled.

Robots may easily be captured or stolen

The VA is funded separately than DoD. Whether or not the DoD budget rises or falls, the VA keeps on chugging…even limping along during the government shutdown. Furloughs for many, essential worker for the rest until the reserve funds run out before the next continuing resolution.


But isn’t putting robots in harm’s way rather than human soldiers actually more protective of human life?

Here we go again…just call it FCS2 — Future Combat Systems 2nd round. With the demise of the GCV, I was hoping that we were through wasting taxpayer dollars until the TRL is raised to a level sufficient enough to support such lofty endeavors. You want to fix the budget? Then get into the waste, fraud and abuse that is the military acquisition system and the senior leaders who make deals that benefit them after service instead of doing what is right for our nation’s security and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who do the dirty work.


Although it is true this factor should be closely monitored by the public; there is also the fact that the robot is expendable, and therefor not subject the the lightning decisions a living soldier must make, to survive. The decision process can be more targeted and deliberate, without need of risking anybody including the suspect enemy.

DOD should select cheap and easily replaceable units, that are mass produced on a scale that makes each unit easy on the pocket book if it is lost in action. With today’s automated manufacture and high volume capability even fairly sophisticated bot could be built at a very economical cost. Tactics should be considered at a tiered priority level to make this whole process even more efficient(wish us luck with that). I feel that some of the very successful flying insect type bots, could be used to gather mass data to find focal points for investigation, and also data for analysis by computer intelligence sent to the same massive data centers that looked for flags in the PRISIM program. This is old tech actually, the Soviets used to do this similar thing monitoring radio communications in the US over spy satellite interception.

These kind of cheap assets could gather data cheaply and safely, and focal points for targeting more aggressively could be identified. Then sending in more expensive assets could be employed to further the cause. I should see no reason to doubt this is already underway, and could fully supplement or even replace HUMINT some day.

Weaponized bots are a last resort, and could only be useful under direct command and control by a remote operator. But eventually this decision could be made after bots with various levels of what was called “insect intelligence” as a type of AI were employed. UAVs have already be successful with this to a point, because they can fly pre-programmed routes until an target of interest can be sent out for a change in mission. Even the smallest bots could easily be run the same way, except their brain power could come from a secreted camouflaged server controller dispatched to a hidden centralized location, and used to act as a higher tier of intelligence for the control scheme of the bot army.

Priority for self protection of the more expensive assets could include several non-lethal arming systems. and for the situations in combat areas under less concern for collateral damage, some very aggressive measures such as “Metal Storm” could be employed to make resistance to surveillance very expensive for the enemy as well!!! All of this could make the need for sending in live warriors in SPECOPS less and less necessary.

Not all bots need what we know as AI or Artificial Intelligence. Many can gather quite a bit of intelligence with little of their own. After all it is the intelligence gathering where bot armies could really make a difference. Once a target is assured, that is a legitimate threat, then this makes taking more risk worth it in using either more expensive bot technology, or even a human strike team.



Very true. I did see some pretty good video and examples of what damage a MULE could take before going out of action — several wheels and other parts could be blown clear off and it could still operate, and in fact complete the mission without ducking out for repair. These weren’t computer animations, but test footage from Aberdeen.

Of course any severe criticism of this whole subject is valid; because our acquisition system is so broken, with no goal of solvency in sight. But it is still fun to brain storm about it. I just pray that in a democratic republic, we can come to at least a partial solution to long term goals.

Well, the news announced that Russia is building a drone army now; so maybe that will cause another big fail in that country — maybe they didn’t learn from the last crash.

Here is a FLASH, with the government cutting everything they can from our once strong military I believe thy will have no choice but to OUTSOURCE our nations security to CHINA!!!

They already do.

But I thought allowing openly gay and women in would take care of recruitment issues? Now we have to look to R2-D2?

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | , and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.