The Army is wholeheartedly embracing the idea that artificial intelligence will play a role on the battlefield; however, it is important to note that robots are not expected to replace soldiers everywhere. According to Gen. James Rainey, the head of Army Futures Command, during an address at the McAleese defense conference near Washington on Tuesday, the aim is to utilize robots for specific tasks such as clearing buildings or laying line charges to detonate obstacles.
Gen. Rainey emphasized the importance of integrating these robotic systems into military formations in a manner that optimizes operational advantages. He referred to this integration as a priority for the Army, particularly in response to lessons learned from the Global War on Terror. The Army is actively working to redesign its warfighting doctrine to better prepare for engagements with peer adversaries across ground, air, and cyber domains while ensuring the safety and effectiveness of its personnel and equipment.
He indicated that achieving “the proper combination of humans and machines” could allow heavy Army units to reduce their weight, enhancing their maneuverability on the battlefield and improving their sustainment over time. This approach would give soldiers more capacity to address complex problems and make decisions based on values, according to Rainey’s insights.
In discussing advancements in warfare, Gen. Rainey pointed to the transformative role of drones in air combat over the past two decades. These advancements have relieved human operators from scouting enemy positions and piloting aircraft for precision strikes. Now, the Army is focused on finding solutions that will similarly lighten the load in ground combat scenarios.
To achieve their goals, the Army plans to focus on systems that fall into two categories: those that are “expensive and exquisite,” delivering high performance and reliability, and those that are “cheap and mass,” allowing for bulk purchasing and production. Rainey expressed the intention to avoid spending the majority of their budget on systems that fall within the “80 percent in between,” which do not meet the criteria of being either optimal or cost-effective.
