The Soldier is the Network

Roland Piquepaille writes "This article from InfoWorld says that "in the battle of the future, the helmet becomes a data retrieval device." It describes a scenario where soldiers are equipped with sensors and other networking equipment. "Each person is a network with routing capability to everyone else," says Peter Marcotullio, director of development at SRI International. This technology should be available in five years for the military, which probably means that we'll become networks ourselves ten years from now. Check this column for a summary. Please note that this article is part of a special report called "From the battlefield to the enterprise" which looks at why some key technologies -- deployed on a massive scale in Afghanistan and Iraq -- may hold promise for corporate IT."

Comments

soldier network

[loveandpeace]

we are becoming Ender's Hive Queen. Does this mean i'll have a job before the unemployment runs out?

Mesh Networking

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain how this differs from mesh networking?

Re:Mesh Networking

[Mafiew]

I think the point of the article is that this technology already exists and it's the implementation that's really innovative. The challenge is making such a system practical for use on the battlefield so that a soldier isn't lugging around a couple of car batteries, a PC, bulky wireless equipment etc...

Other tech from the battlefield to the enterprise.

[IvyMike]

I can think of some other technologies that I would have liked to have available at work, some days.

This will be the end of a long tradition

[IainMH]

of soilders taking Playboy into battle. Why bother when you can get thehun on your HUD?

Helmet...?!!

[Paddyish]

the helmet becomes a data retrieval device

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to see scenes from 'Spaceballs'...

Health concerns

[rxed]

Anybody knows if FCC has some advisories about wireless devices touching your body for long periods of time? A booklet I have (from my wireless router) states that "The FCC with its action in ET Docket 96-8 has adopted safety standard for human exposure to RF energy emitted: 1) Do not touch or move antennas while unit is transmitting or receiving."

Re:Health concerns

[WIAKywbfatw]

Anybody knows if FCC has some advisories about wireless devices touching your body for long periods of time? A booklet I have (from my wireless router) states that "The FCC with its action in ET Docket 96-8 has adopted safety standard for human exposure to RF energy emitted: 1) Do not touch or move antennas while unit is transmitting or receiving."

You bring up a very good point. But, when has any military (US or otherwise) really cared about the long-term welfare of its soldiers?

Look at the evidence over the years: soldiers acting as guinea pigs during the post World War II atomic bomb tests, chemical stimulants used on US soldiers in Vietnam (and bromide tea given to troops in World War I), antitodes that have lead to serious side-effects being administered during the first Gulf War, who knows how many instances of post-traumatic stress disorder, etc.

It has been said that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Politicians aren't exactly reknowned for looking beyond the short-term, and the use (or, more accurately, misuse) of soldiers throughout the ages is fact, not fiction.

Re:Health concerns

[Imperator]

Though I'm lucky enough to have never had this experience, I'm imagine that when people are shooting at you, a little bit of RF energy is the least of your worries.

Also, why not put the antenna on top of the helmet? The helmet than then incorporate a layer of RF shielding. (It's already got layers of protection against shrapnel.

Re:Health concerns

[the eric conspiracy]

Anybody knows if FCC has some advisories about wireless devices touching your body for long periods of time?

This is the same sort of question as "Do cell-phones cause brain cancer". We have a lot of experimental data on this, with few answers.

The impact of RF on biological systems has been controversial for a very long time. Some studies have shown that there is an effect, however reproducability is very poor, and the issue is still under study with no clear-cut answer available. Surely any logical person may draw the conclusion that an unknown risk, even if it is small, of this sort should be avoided.

On the other and the essential purpose of these devices is to reduce the likelihood of being killed in battle by conventional weapons. The impact of bullets, explosive devices and so on on the human body in NOT controversial, and is very reproducable.

It seems to me that the tradeoff of some potential, unproven effect of dubious statistical significance vs. significant reduction of the likelihood of taking a rockect propelled grenade in your lap is pretty clear-cut.

I see some problems with this

[nemaispuke]

With DARPA and DoD's never ending penchant for technology to solve every problem, I see potential for numerous problems with the "wired soldier". DoD has a bandwidth problem now trying to control and get imagery from airborne Predator UAV's, what happens when you wire the individual soldier? Where is this bandwidth going to come from? Can this be subject to monitoring and how is it going to be secured? For that matter can it withstand an EMP pulse? If I wanted to take out communicating enemy forces using modern comm gear that is not hardened, a small tactical nuke would do just fine. And what about the possibility of interception even if it is secure? What if a unit that has a base unit to receive updates is captured, then parts of the system (or the whole system) is compromized. This will take years of testing before it ever becomes reality, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:I see some problems with this

[malakai]

DoD has a bandwidth problem now trying to control and get imagery from airborne Predator UAV's, what happens when you wire the individual soldier?

They don't have a bandwidth problem, CNN, FOX.. et. al have a bandwidth problem. The Military bought all the commercial sat times for the war. It was very cost effective. They have enough bandwidth using commercial sats, and that will last them until the new comm constellation goes online in 2010. Not to mention, their stake in Global Crossing keeps their terrestial bandwidth in huge supply.

Where is this bandwidth going to come from?

When all your soldiers are routers and are sharing spectrum, the aggregate of them ADDS to your bandwidth, not subtracts. You no longer have just one path (humvee->sattelite->another humvee) you now could possible relay over a 'human' network. The more nodes, the more possible paths. Setup a fixed node with some high long range emf link back to home base, or bounce it off a sat.

Can this be subject to monitoring and how is it going to be secured?

I laugh everytime I see a statement like this on slashdot. I sometime forget everyone on slashdot believes they are somehow unique and think of things noone else could. Gee, do you think they should encrypt the network? Gee can it be monitored? The fact you even thought of this should tell you the military has thought of it as well.

For that matter can it withstand an EMP pulse?

Probably not. But just because their is some way for the enemy to take away your advantage doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. If they EMP you, it won't be a big area. A few units in close proximity to each other could all go down at once, but again, so what. They are trained to use the advantage when they have it. When they don't, they issue orders using vocal resonance called SHOUTING.

If I wanted to take out communicating enemy forces using modern comm gear that is not hardened, a small tactical nuke would do just fine

Umm, a small tactical nuke will kill them. Lack of communication at that point is moot. See above comment.

And what about the possibility of interception even if it is secure?

Well then it wouldn't be secure would it.

What if a unit that has a base unit to receive updates is captured, then parts of the system (or the whole system) is compromized

What if you capture and torture a prisoner for the information? Is the war lost? No, you expect and antcipate your enemys move. You anticipate that they may get to a Humvee which the engine is still running (the keys reset when the engine is turned off, and after a idle timeout). You are vulnerable while that stolen humvee goes unreported. But your troops should never be out of contact. At worse, you enemy has a few hours of information to the whereabouts of some of your troops. At best, you know they stole the humvee, you know they are using it, and you feed them false data. So the enemy knows your location, again, you lost an advantge, not the war. They still have to act on that information, and in the end, some grunt with a finger on the trigger can save the day by killing before being killed.

This will take years of testing before it ever becomes reality, I wouldn't hold my breath.

It was used in Iraq. So you could have held your breath. Not the full power of it, and not as many sensors, but Captains in the field had realtime data and video communication via a distributed wirless net. The net had to be setup by grunts, and pushed forward with the troops, but it was done. There's lots of space the EM world. Especially when you dont have to care about the FCC.

I know slashdot is home of the cynics, but for once, i'd like to see comments about "wow, this is cool technology, i wonder how we could find out more about it, i wonder if we could get an interview with people making this stuff, talk to the geeks, discuss their routing choices...etc". Instead of all this "this is dumb, some script kiddie is going to DDOS our soldier, as they look up porn on their embedded internet connections.

-malakai

Re:I see some problems with this

[nemaispuke]

I am a twenty year veteran and I will give you an example of this "they have thought of this". In 1987 a certain aircraft carrier was participating in an operation called Earnest Will (reflagged Kuwaiti tankers). We had people from various Intelligence commands onboard and one of them forgot to mention the film one of these assets was going to be shooting. Since photo intelligence was a critical part of this operation don't you think it would be important to pass on pertinent information to those concerned?! The Photo Labs on an aircraft carrier have certain capabilities, and the people responsible for thinking these things up don't always know everything (or are told everything). That is usually the result of a four star Admiral to Captain conversation "Captain, get this done", response "Yes sir". Don't tell me "they have thought of everything" from personal experience I can tell you they haven't! So it's cool, so what. This isn't no Linux laptop we are talking about. Actual people are going to using this equipment to stay alive, I sure as Hell hope it works!

Re:I see some problems with this

[Minna Kirai]

They don't have a bandwidth problem

The limiting factor to the number of Predators that can be airborne at once is not available drones, but bandwidth contention.

Gee, do you think they should encrypt the network? Gee can it be monitored? The fact you even thought of this should tell you the military has thought of it as well.

Yes, it sounds obvious and logical. But yet, the military only noticed this after UK satellite-dish hobbyists started recording unencrypted Predator feeds from the Middle East.

If they EMP you, it won't be a big area.

EMPs have been known to have a diamter greater than 2000 miles. Refer to Test Shot Starfish for background. Creating an EMP that is controlled (directional) and yet still powerful is actually more technologically challenging than firing a large one.

Umm, a small tactical nuke will kill them. Lack of communication at that point is moot. See above comment.

A nuke explosion at a high altitude is the easiest way to create a widespread EMP blast. Electronics will be damaged at a distance 100s of times greater than the human-lethal blast range.

There are obvious reasons why a nation with atomic weapons might be more willing to employ them for EMP against equipment, rather than targeting troops on the ground.

Russia still maintains a capability to fire a large nuke into the upper atmosphere, which would blackout London and Berlin in a single shot. The US State Department claims that North Korea has a system with similar power.

Scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

The date is 2199. A unit of the Fourth French Resistence, a ragtag bunch, hide in a canyon. The commander listens into his radio for a minute

[commander [in french]] the americans are coming. we should shortly be attacked by a robotic flying drone capable of dropping bombs sucking all air out of a 500 foot radius, followed by a mopup crew of several hundred armored networked hive soldiers. everyone put on your air mask.

the commander begins to get a piece of equipment out of a duffel bag. he hovers intently over a red button on it, watching.

[recruit] What's that?
[commander] EMP blast. It's the only weapon we have against them.

Re:Scenario

[Cappy Red]

Yup, DDoSing, hacking, EMP blasting, or just staticing it all to hell.

"Walking internet cafes with laser blasters brought down by ragtag group with sticks and stones, and a freak electrical storm"

*honk*

P2P Soldier?

[fonetik]

Sounds like these guys are going to want to put a check in the box for "Do not function as a Supernode". =)

Re:Scary

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

FYI, being a pacifist doesnt make you immune to violence from others.

Inter-Battle LinkUp

[Arc04]

Wow! This has so much potential!
The soldiers could install CS or UT2003 on their HUDs, and then play with other soldiers over the net who are githing in different battles, or just training at HQ - ultimate VR!!!!

They could then pretend to kill people on the game, whilst killing people in real life!

(Did I use too many exclamation marks???)

A day, when...

[SharpFang]

...each platoon has a cracker or a few, who is able to jam the opponent's displays temporarily, hack into older models to confuse the enemy's friend-or-foe identification, protect his own people from such attacks, snoop on enemy data transfers, fry their heads or change the intelligent helmet into guided missile attractor beacon...

Future? Maybe not, but certainly a good idea for a computer game.

Re:A day, when...

[SharpFang]

The fact that the army recruits nerds amongst others means nothing yet. For example, nerds make superb "live shields" to attract enemy fire, thus protecting more valuable soldiers...

Re:A day, when...

[razvedchik]

They do. Special Forces do reconnaisance missions, and there is such a large capability developed for electronic warfare that almost all of the command and control centers are known well in advance. It becomes a cat-and-mouse game trying to destroy the alternates that aren't in use at the beginning of hostilities but pop up when you destroy the primaries.

Re:Scary

[thebigmacd]

It's true. Just try to protect yourself against aggression without hurting anyone or anything.

Just what I need...

[big_groo]

"the helmet...may hold promise for corporate IT."

For those instances when we *all* want to just bang our heads into the wall - eg. 'My internet is broken.' or 'The laptop won't turn on!' etc.

Re:Ip Addresses

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, imagine if a script kiddie got hold of a soldier's IP and began DDOSing him, and making him unable to report back, or sending him bogus information that could kill him.

Okay. First off, i cannot imagine that this would be on the public internet at all. That would be stupid. I'm guessing that the soldier 'network', such as it is, will by and large be limited to the geographic area where the soldiers are. I doubt they'd have public access, though whoever is commander of the block or whatever probably has a private uplink.

A "script kiddie", if you really want to use those words (how about "enemy combatant"?), would somehow have to get into the local network of soldiers, which would mean being there physically. Since i'd imagine this network is using wireless of some sort (well, i mean unless all the soldiers helmets drag ethernet cables), this means that the script kiddy in question would be broadcasting. IP addresses can be forged, but broadcast signals can be traced to their source. If someone is interfering with their network of soldiers, the military can and *will* simply locate and drop bombs on this person, as they are 1) in a war zone 2) attempting to sabotage military defense lines.

I'd imagine that inputting false information, rather than just DOSing, would require the keys to whatever cryptography the military is using. The U.S. military probably has the best cryptography in the world, and if you can get hold of the u.s. military's cryptographic methods and keys, you sure as hell are NOT going to do anything as blatant with this knowledge as interfere with small-time military skirmishes; that would alert the u.s. military that you've broken their code, which would be bad. Rather, you are going to sit there and quietly soak up all the information you can while those keys are still valid.

However, from a military standpoint, attempting to take individual soldiers and hijack their helmets, or something, and pump back false information, would be a very good idea, and much easier. Likewise, i would suspect the chinese military will soon be developing as many ways as possible to jam local wireless networks.

-- super ugly ultraman

A fat lot of good..

[AndroidCat]

.. all that fancy equipment will do if the enemy has some of those EMP bombs that they were itching to try out in Iraq. (Did they ever use one, or is that classified?)

Re:A fat lot of good..

[SharpFang]

Nowadays EMP protection is not a big problem in military environment - the "faraday's cage" is simple and effective enough. (Put an electronic watch ON TOP of a working microwave oven. Nothing happens. Now put it inside.) so either the pulse would have to be VERY strong or the equipment would have to be "civil grade" (unprotected) or quite old (pre-EMP-threat). I guess such a helmet would be quite easy to protect. Maybe except the antenna.

Re:A fat lot of good..

[Christopher Thomas]

Nowadays EMP protection is not a big problem in military environment - the "faraday's cage" is simple and effective enough.

A faraday cage around a radio is pretty pointless, as it prevents your radio from transmitting or receiving.

Any break in the shield allows leaks. Any antenna penetrating the shield acts as a waveguide - you might as well not have the shield in the first place if you do this.

EMP hardening for transceivers is done by making them able to tolerate large induced currents in the antennas. There will always be a point at which this ceases to work well (you try to make it past the point where it's no longer worth lobbing EMP bombs around).

Re:Scary

[Doom Ihl' Varia]

Easy. Just use a picture of my history professor's ex-mother-in-law. They'll run screaming and never come back. No need to kill them.

Re:Scary

[CausticWindow]

The trick is to not make people aggressive towards you. I guess you guys have a problem with that too??

Also, I know non lethal Kung Fu, so if I ever have to defend myself, I can disable my opponent with a few quick blows. Without hurting them in a serious manner, of course.

Re:Scary

[jericho4.0]

This has nothing to do with 'AI' or 'computer controlled'. It simply extends the amount of information available to individual soldiers and C&C units for better descision making and comunication.

Admitedly, many present and future systems do contain a fair amount of autonomous behaviour, including aircraft control, targeting, and even expert systems aplied to target selection. These seem to work pretty well, and I'm sure we'll see more of them. I would imagine that millitary tradition will keep important descions in the hands of humans for a long time, though.

Bah!

[Greyfox]

Train your soldiers to rely on their eqipment and you'll end up with a bunch of soldiers who are useless when the eqipment fails. I'm not saying technology on the battlefield is bad, but your guys better have a back-up plan in case the enemy happens to have a HERF gun handy.

This is also why I'm against putting additional electronics in guns. Sure, a gun that self destructs if an identity check fails seems like a good idea, right up until someone loses an arm because the mechanism malfunctioned. Sometimes keeping it simple is still the best policy.

Re:Bah!

[razvedchik]

Agreed. We're seeing this in land navigation, where some of the younger soldiers are more reliant on GPS than they are on a map. The "crufty old ones" (I'm about halfway there) rely on a map rather than something that needs batteries. I've seen guys who were totally lost once their GPS battery died and they couldn't get another one. I ended up giving them mine, and working solely on my map.

There are places where GPS is really handy, don't get me wrong, though. It's just that it's a tool to help you, to make your life easier, but at the end of the day, it's on you as to whether you have to walk 500 meters or 5 kilometers home.

Re:Bah!

[.milfox]

Sounds like your brother is telling stories again, man. :P

All the folks in a M1 tank (in the Army, I believe the marines are similar) are crosstrained. Why?

Well, we've got 4 man crews. Loader, Driver, Gunner, and Commander.

You report to a tank, you're usually a buck private who's assigned as a loader. There, you learn the driver skills, then the gunner skills, and when you make SSG or so you command the tank.

Take out the driver? The gunner or commander can take over, or the loader who's half-trained can prolly take over if he's not too new. Gunner? The commander can take over, if neccessary. And so on.

Take out a track? Yes, the tank's a mobility kill, until the repair folks come up. But if you're running around without infantry support in the first place, you're prolly in a situation where you don't *need* that infantry support. (ie, highly mobile warfare). If you've got infantry with you, but *still* need that disabled tank's crew to come out to play infantry, you've got bigger problems thank lack of cross-training. (Although every US soldier and marine can function as basic infantry).

And the beta tester are...

[jabbadabbadoo]

...Dolph Lundegren and Claude Van Damme. If they can sober up the latter one, that is.

Top five problems... with the OS's involved

[baloogan]

Windows:

1. BSOD really is BSOD
2. WarriorNT crashes more often than crack addicts
3. Before going into conflict all soldiers must hum the windows start up tune
4. ... and the intel inside tune
5. finally:

Linux:

1. ITS GNU/FIGHTIX not just FIGHTIX
2. Think free ammo not free beer
3. Eventually some kernal hacker will make soldiers invinseble
4. KDEKILL vs GNUKE
5. linux-targeting-with-caffeen-HOWTO

any other suggrestions?

Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri

[Realistic_Dragon]

Designed especially for the American Law Enforcement user

providing the operator with sixty rounds of available firepower right on the weapon.

So American cops reguarly need to shoot 60 people without the inceonvenient delay of a reload? Blimey, it must be like living in a war zone over there.

Rumsfeld Doctrine

[razvedchik]

Before everybody starts thinking that the generals at the top of the DoD will have real-time information on what the individual soldier is doing, it's a misinterpretation of what the military is trying to do with their technology.

Basically, the first tenet of war has been "massing of firepower at critical locations," which has been said very inelegantly as "get there the fastest with the mostest." This has been a strength of units such as calvary, who rely on strong reconnaisance to defeat a stronger enemy with a smaller force by being smarter and faster. What the systems that are being developed bring to the battlefield is better communications to mass at decisive places. We aren't to the point where every soldier has a network sensor system on their bodies, because we really don't need that.

It's called the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" and it's a doctrine that uses our technological advantage to do more with less manpower because we can mass faster and better when we know the situation.

What's happening is that from the commander level up to the higher commanders, there is a very good information flow. That has always existed, in reports sent in by radio, such as a situation report (sitrep), mainenance report, or kia report. The only changes are that it's now faster because of the technology, and that we're starting to see information being collected at the higher levels then pushed down to the lower commanders in the field.

This helps the decision-makers because they have better situational awareness. If you've never been on the ground looking for stuff to kill, you'd be amazed at how easy it is to focus on your little part of the war, and then get surprised when you forget that you're one little piece of what's going on.

Re:Rumsfeld Doctrine

[Mr_Icon]

This has been a strength of units such as calvary...

Mm.... Calvary units... Do they summon the name of Jesus while turning the other cheek? :)

(I think you meant cavalry)

Please, stop it.

[WetCat]

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!
No more arm races and unnecessary wars!
Killing people in wars is a crime.

Re:Please, stop it.

[RyatNrrd]

With glorious new technology like this around the place, how can we possibly give peace a chance? Everyone's itching to see the new smart-bombs/dumb-soldiers/whatever at work.

Blood and guts, cool new machines, women crying, high-brow political debate...

War: It's got something for everyone.

Re:Please, stop it.

[Rubbersoul]

I am more then willing to give peace a chance, and as soon as you talk the middle eastern counties (among others) supporting terrorists groups and religious nuts in to giving it a chance too I will join you on stopping the arms race. Seems how I do not think you have much of a chance in succeeding at that I am going to go ahead and support my military so they can protect my civilian ass.

I say thank you to those men and women, I do not yell at them to stop protecting me!

Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri

[Hanji]

Nah ... they're just REALLY inaccurate.

Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri

[Anonymous Coward]

So American cops reguarly need to shoot 60 people without the inceonvenient delay of a reload? Blimey, it must be like living in a war zone over there.

You misunderstand the special and dramatic needs of Drug law enforcement officers. It isn't a matter of 60 people, it's just a matter of sometimes, they really need to shoot one person 60 times very quickly. After all, think of the horrors that could happen if they only shot them 30 times; some of the people these brave officers are up against are armed with wallets. God knows what the druggies could do if they were only shot 10 or 20 times in quick succession by an unmarked officer busting into their house in the middle of the night with no explanation. They could retaliate. Do you want to put policemen in the line of danger like that?

Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri

[Cyberdyne]

So American cops reguarly need to shoot 60 people without the inceonvenient delay of a reload?

60 people? No. Try to stop a car by shooting out the tires/engine? Yes. Also, remember "law enforcement" covers SWAT teams; using 3-round bursts, this will give you 20 pulls of the trigger before it needs to be reloaded. Still a bit excessive for most situations - but better to have too many rounds than to be first into a drug den, and be up against 11 people with only enough to take out 10...

Blimey, it must be like living in a war zone over there.

Not from what I've seen - and no, the police don't carry these things on patrol! They just have a lot of stuff "just in case", for dealing with really serious problems. Everything from adapted tanks for breaking down doors, to helicopters for chasing getaway cars without endangering other traffic.

Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri

[IvyMike]

Here in the US, we're pretty generous with our "bullet to person" ratio, so 60 bullets does not imply anywhere close to 60 people. I mean, seriously, even when running with the counterstrike cheats, nobody's that good.

P.S. Last time I was in England, we couldn't find a trash can anywhere. They had mostly been removed because of the possiblity that someone would leave a bomb in one. How's that war zone thing going with you guys?

Re:Scary

[Christopher Thomas]

Don't you think religion might have something to do with religious wars?

You miss the point.

Your religion or lack thereof is irrelevant to the person trying to kill you because their god told them to.

Your philosophy and outlook are similarly irrelevant to the person who wants something you posess (be it on an individual level or a national level) and decides to take it by force.

The upshot of this is that you can't make *all* people "not aggressive towards you".

Your non-lethal kung fu doesn't help if they're smart and armed. Or if they decide to come back with friends and baseball bats.

I do not advocate a philosophy of proactive violence. However, I do not feel that a philosophy of absolute non-violence (or minimum-at-all-costs violence) is practical either, for reasons outlined above.

Picture / Alternate Story

[Stone Rhino]

Hmm, seems FARK had slashdot scooped here. This story has a picture and some more information:
http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/3/2003/06/01/s tory001.html

Tech Overkill

[crmsndude]

This is ridiculous. Why an individual soldier would need that much information in the middle of combat is beyond me, and probably all of these gee-whiz wonks who've never even served. Case in point, when it came down to Infantry fighting in Iraq all of the personal technology, the GPS and whatnot meant nothing when the troops were concerned with keeping themselves from getting killed. When it comes to actual combat situations, anything that isn't going to immediately serve as a weapon is worthless. Look at the prep the soldiers in Black Hawk Down went through (At least, the book. I refuse to see the movie). They grabbed as much ammo as possible and left everything that wasn't a weapon behind because it was DEAD WEIGHT!

The utility of this technology is for a unit leader, with an obvious hierarchy of technological burden/C4I access and control. Officers at the platoon level and up would benefit greatly from this technology so that they could keep track of all of their units and support elements. Likewise, a lesser amount of access and interface for squad leaders to keep track of individual soldiers in an urban or similar combat zone. There's no need for anyone below E-5 to need to know the status of the damn UCAVs because they don't, and shouldn't, have the authority to command them anyway.

Moreover, I really wonder if these people actually expect soldiers to basically compromise their line of sight in the middle of combat. Even if they do, those HUDS are never going to be used in the middle of a firefight because there isn't anything remotely useful for a soldier to utilize that can't be done with an order over the radio from someone who DOES have sufficient overwatch capability and necessity to do so. When the U.S. Army or Marine Corps sets up sniper/countersniper positions relatively afar from enemy forces, what difference does it make that each soldier have a map or any other nonsense? They need to be able to shoot and have unit coordination, which is better accomplished by limiting this much technology and information to platoon headquarters units and above, and possibly much less information to squad leaders.

Which brings me to my next point: INFOSEC.
God forbid a soldier or Marine gets killed while wearing all of the crap necessary to operate this farce of a wannabe battlesuit. How do they presume to them eliminate the potential for hostile agents to access and compromise U.S. forces by using all of this information against them when they are in the middle of combat and can't quickly strip the dead soldier (which I'm sure their recently-close friends would enjoy in the middle of combat) and destroy (to prevent immediate threat of compromise) all of this equipment.

All of this equipment has its place, mainly with vehicles (the first place this type of technology was introduced and where it is most advanced) for a reason. It's mainly utility and scope of combat, as well as the amount of data relevant to those forces as opposed to Infantry. Infantry doesn't need this. The officer corps would benefit from it, but the individual soldier or Marine would find it useless, distracting, and quite simply and unnecessary burden. This could easily add 10-20lbs. to their ensemble, and for units in Airborne, Special Operations, and even most Infantry that is heaping crap on top of gear that already weighs almost as much as they do (i.e., the 100+lbs. of gear Airborne soldiers carry in airborne insertions). As we saw in Afghanistan during Operation: Anaconda, depending on the locale the gear was already too much for them to carry, especially as they are moving out in the middle of a firefight, with soldiers actually falling over backwards and struggling to get into helicopters because the weight of the gear and exhaustion (due to fatigue and the thin air at the altitudes of the combat zones in Afghanistan) just got the best of them. So these geniuses want to ADD MORE WEIGHT? Good luck.

Re:Tech Overkill

[SharpFang]

1. "Retreat NOW, they try to surround us".
2. "Red markers on your HUD are the enemy positions. Blue are ours."
3. With current wind and angle, your grenade launcher will reach THIS point."
4."Friendly fireline comes through here. Stay cautious"
5. "A friendly soldier wants to walk past your fireline. Cease fire for 10 seconds"
6. "Red marks enemy positions behind the wall as seen from friendly camera"
(think WallCheat in counterstrike)
7. "Nearest medic: 300m North ( --->that direction)"
8. Map with all positions marked.
9. "SOS, they are two steps away from my foxhole and my gun has jammed, but they don't see me yet!"
10. "The 2000 pound bomb will fall here: X"

Aww, that sight "+300" rising over enemy's corpse and score counter running up by 300, what could possibly encourage you to fight more effectively?!

**boooinnngg**

[Anonymous Coward]

HELLO!! it looks like you're trying to kill some evil-doers...

would you like some help with that!?!?!?!

A whole new meaning to "Blue Screen of Death"

[SmoothTom]

Seriously, though, this sounds very much like the comm units described by Robert Anson Heinlein in Starship Troopers (the BOOK not the movie!).

Properly designed and used this sort of communication capability can greatly expand effectiveness and survivability.

Just don't let Microsoft do the software ...

--
Tomas

Next comes the Smarter Bullet

[Nom du Keyboard]

And just how long before someone creates a smart bullet to home in on the EM emissions of this helmet -- and at a whole lot lower cost than the helmet itself?

Re:Next comes the Smarter Bullet

[praksys]

And just how long before someone creates a smart bullet to home in on the EM emissions of this helmet ...

Anti-radiation missiles are actually pretty expensive, and if they could make them sensitive enough to home in on such low levels of EM-radiation then they would already be using them as anti-tank weapons.

Even when transmiting military radio communications gear is already very stealthy. It uses packets sent on varying frequencies, so there is no constant signal to lock on to.

Another Stupid Idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

This perceived soldier of the future is gonna get wacked pretty easily. Being a former airborne veteran and now engineer, I'm glad that I'm not going to be wearing one of these things. Let's just see...the average pack weighs ~60lbs. Add ~20 for body armor and you get ~80 lbs of gear the average joe has to hump.

Let's see now...we want to stick another 20 lbs of crap on. The makes the average weight for a solder over 100 lbs. And that doesn't take into account the friggin batteries or the fact that the helmet is now going to weigh 10+ lbs (Kevlar helmets are pretty heavy). Talk about neck sprain.

And the idea of having a tactical HUD in front of the soldiers face is just another brilliantly stupid idea...I'm sure the soldier will love it when they're taking fire and sees stupid markers/graphics jumping across his cornea. Screw night vision also...oh wait, they have a AN-PVS8 which attaches to the helmet...whoopie my helm now weighs upwards of friggin FIFTEEN lbs.

Getting past all that...how the hell is the average soldier going to contribute to overall battlefield planning? Does he really need to know where the company commander is during a firefight? That's why we have NCOs...

Hope our new Army is rife with Arnold type bodies and Einstein brains...

Re:Scary

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I've read that Ghandi actually criticized the Jews of Nazi Germany for remaining (relatively) silent for so long. As I recall, he said something to the effect that if they'd held a peaceful protest, and forced the Nazis to kill a lot of them, then the public outcry would've been sufficient to prevent later atrocities.

What is the first use of any new medium?

[the eric conspiracy]

I can just see it now. pr0n and spam delivered right to my helmet.

Steam tactics

[ironduke-particle]

What is being proposed has been tried before.

The Royal Navy led the world in the mid-19th century in adopting steam propulsion, with ships proceeding in formation at constant speed, with evolutions being carried out as per flag signals from the flagship. Signal books became more complicated; signalling became a job for the brightest and best, among both officers and seamen. New signalling mechanisms such as Morse code over wireless, or Morse over signal lamp, were adopted with alacrity. People sent signals because they could, and having sent signals to the commander, whose orders they were supposed to follow, they expected replies.

Consequently, after a couple of decades of this, the Royal Navy couldn't fight worth shit.

There are two anecdotes involving Nelson and signalling -- the "blind eye" at Copenhagen, and the "England expects" before Trafalgar. These weren't tactical signals. These were Nelson having a laugh. Nelson had no truck with centralised command and this signalling malarkey; he trained his commanders as he was trained, to understand their job and to get on with it as they saw fit. Nelson and his like put the fear of God (or rather, the fear of the Royal Navy) so thoroughly that it lasted a century.

This "the soldier is the network" business means that a soldier is going to get flooded with urgent requests for tax records at a moment when he might expect to be being given information about at which window to point his grenade launcher. But then, that information would probably be coming from a major in a bunker in the Pentagon who's never handled a grenade launcher, and whose orders are going to be at best meaningless and at worst horribly counterproductive.

Maybe the DoD should consult at the militaries of other nations, that have efficient armed forces and smaller budgets, and see what'd spend the money on, given the choice. Wouldn't be this. But it might be a smaller, lighter, more reliable, more powerful, strongly-encrypted radio comms system with extensions for a whiteboard mode.

Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri

[Malcontent]

You make a very good point. One thing we know about our law enforment officers is that they tend to fall down when shooting at unarmed people and are prone to uncontrolled exclamations of "he's gut a gun!" when people pull out their wallets.

Spaceballs? Try Star Wars...

[User 956]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to see scenes from 'Spaceballs'...

Is it just me being paranoid, or does the "soldier of the future" in this picture look like an Imperial stormtrooper?

What's next, Dick Cheney on a respirator with a black helmet?

Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri

[Wyatt Earp]

"Police doctrine varies by department but generally involves hitting your target, so the rounds don't go downrange and hit innocent bystanders."

If you look at the shootouts between Police and criminals when there have been officers or civilians down between the criminals and the police, the police will use high volumes of fire with semi-auto or burst weapons.

Usually the Police use shotguns or 9mm submachine guns in urban settings since they lose energy quickly and don't penetrate walls/cars/doors well. The danger is since the North Hollywood shootout and the loss of officers in Portland and Waco to high power pistols and 5.56 and 5.45mm assault rifles, the police are going to M-4s and M-16s whose rounds will go a long ways and go through houses.

civilians

[Espen]

As it stands, civilians, necessarily mostly unprotected from the benefits of technology, are going to represent the majority of casualties in 'armed conflict'. I'm the only one to think that this is perverse?

Re:Other tech from the battlefield to the enterpri

[Sycraft-fu]

SWAT teams do, yes. Most cops carry only a pistol with them, but speical units like SWAT teams need more firepower. PArt of it is simply the threat of overwhelming force can often difuse a situation. If a gunman is faced with 10 heavily armed SWAT members, they are much mroe likely to give up than if they are faced with one normal officer. However, part of having that threat is the need to be ready if you get called out on it. It wouldn't do any good to have guns that just LOOK scary, they need to be powerful as well.

Re:Two thoughts: enemies and robots

[gerardrj]

The day we allow robots to fight our battles is the day there will be no end to war.
IF you wany peace, then you have to make those responsible for the induction of it responsible for it's enactment. How? All the heads of the government and their immediate familes must serve in the war on "front-line" combat situations. None of this rear suppoert unit, or carrier duty. Every Senator, Representative, President and the Cabinet, along with their spouses and children must take up arms and fight for the cause.

This centuries old system of old men sending young men to thier deaths, for the benefit of the old men has just got to stop.

Man-in-the-middle Attack

[macdaddy]

This gives an entirely new meaning to the legendary "Man-In-The-Middle Attack."

Dear Mr. Roland 'Karma-Whoring' Piquepaille ...

[HardcoreGamer]

Check this column for a summary.

I'm curious why (with one exception) you never seem to point out that ''this column'' is YOUR BLOG?

If you want to be a karma-whore then that's your business. And that's the only conclusion we can reach considering the sheer number of submissions (33 as of this one, not counting however many were rejected) in the 2 months since you set up your account, and the frequency with which you discourage people from reading the original articles (always pointing them to your blog).

I find some of the articles you post interesting so by all means continue to contribute. But please don't pretend that you aren't pointing people to your blog.

Presumably you're trying to turn yourself into another Internet pundit or get the traffic on your site up high enough so that you can charge big bucks for advertising. That's cool too if you want to do that.

But please ... just stop pretending that you're directing people somewhere other than your own blog.

Sincerely,
HardcoreGamer