It's not likely to be any one thing. Sure, the various top militaries are working on making the basic grunt a better soldier, through armour and weaponry as well as communications, but at the same time I believe that stuff like UAVs is likely to come to prominence and start being used more widely. The thing is that it never comes down to two advanced, mechanized armies fighting it out. They're not stupid. So it's very likely to remain a mismatch in technology which will require different tactics. You can equip a 20 year old with no previous training with an AK, RPG-7 and a cheap tactical vest and have him present a considerable threat underurban conditions. As opposed to spending tens of thousands of dollars and several years training the big bad Special Forces types who essentially do the same job but with the benefit of a great technological advantage (close air support, heavy mechanized units etc, air recon).
The US isn't necessarily doing it right. They like flashy, expensive crap that look good on paper, with names like Force Operator Tactical Initiative, but is just a waste of money compared to the payoff. Most countries, even the major power, can't afford that. So for a while yet, several decades at least, I think that a soldier is going to remain just some guy with a longish tube that shoots bits of metal. After that, who knows.
As for the XM-8, I'm not at all convinced that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. First of all, the army has been screwing around with that one for a while now, without doing anything serious to commit to the project. Secondly, it is after just another assault rifle. Whoop-de-doo, it look flashy. It's just a G36 with a cosmetic change. Sure, it's accurate, lightweight and doesn't jam, but it doesn't do anything that a $60 Kalashnikov with a scope can't. It's not revolutionary. Certainly not considerably better than other modern ARs.
Poll
