Slashdot Mirror


Future Army Battle Uniforms - Wired, Lethal

ssyladin writes "CNN is running an article about the future US army battle dress, code-named 'Scorpion'. It says that "..soldiers of 2011 will step into wired uniforms that incorporate all the equipment they need. The uniforms will monitor vital signs and plug them into a massive network of satellites, unmanned planes and robotic vehicles the military has planned." There will be sensors to monitor heartrate and blood-pressure, built-in tourniquets, a HUD to connect to GPS info, overhead maps, infrared and starlight cameras, and even the venerable M16 rifles are slated for an overhaul."

6 of 756 comments (clear)

  1. Haven't we heard this all before? by brocheck · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I seem to recall a while back about the Urban Warrior System and all that nonsense that it was supposed to do and how every soldier would be using it by the new millenium. Frankly I don't expect something like this to be adopted for a long time. It adds another point of failure (`Fuck! My clothes have crashed!') requires maintenance, and replenishable energy of some sort ('Everyone, remember to recharge your helmets before the battle'.) Its redicilous, supposedly all soldiers will be networked and you will know the location of every soldier, and whether he is hurt, etc etc. We can do that now, slightly more laboriously (radios) perhaps but I think it gets the job done pretty well.

    This seems to be just your average pork barrel gee whiz military contracting.

    --

    suddenly I feel very tired

  2. america is scary by kop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It freaks me out a little bit, why should a country that is allready so powerful still invest so heavyly in arms. who needs these arms? what for? There is nobody strong enough to challenge the US and nobody will be in the foreseeable future.
    As a non american i feel threatened.
    Am i to be 'liberated' next?

    1. Re:america is scary by misterpies · · Score: 5, Insightful


      and how will all that new hardware prevent terrorist attacks? souped-up soldiers on every internal flight? x-ray goggles to determine the contents of every passing truck?

      the US is easily capable of defeating any army in the field. unless military intelligence is expecting alien invaders to land in the near future, this hardware will in no practical way affect US military superiority. Dictators won't suddenly think, shit, now the US can defeat me in 24 hours instead of a 48, so I'd better fall into line. It's hard to see why any of this stuff is necessary for anything except justifying ever-increasing military spending.

      If the US govt put a fraction of the money and effort it expends on the military into addressing the grievances of dispossessed people around the world, it wouldn't have a problem with terrorism. Most current anti-American terrorist activities is focussed in countries where either the US maintains an unpopular and repressive regime (eg Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Israel - if you're a Palestinian), countries where the US formerly maintained an unpopular and repressive regime (Iran), or countries where the US made explicit or covert military interventions which did nothing to help its people (Lebanon, Afghanistan in the 1980s)

      Unless the US govt changes its m.o. since the end of the Marshall Plan and returns to a long-term commitment to building sustainable states -- based on the needs of their people, not US corporations -- in countries that it has helped to devastate, we can expect Iraq and Afghanistan to become major sources of terrorists in the next few years.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  3. Blocking on battery technology by skookum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I seem to remember seeing this hashed over various times in the past. It sounds great and all, but when you give all this crazy crap to a marine and ask him what he thinks, he says "This is 27 pounds I *don't* need." (Well, he may not say that if his CO is around, but that's what he's thinking.)

    Technology is great and all, but until they can pack it all down to a few ounces, I really don't see it taking off. Every soldier knows how much burden something like just an extra pound adds to a pack. It can really make a difference. In the end it seems to always come down to the battery. They can shrink LCD screens, keyboards, earpieces, whatever. But to have a useful lifetime they still need a heavy battery pack and I think that's what's really holding this back.

    The military is all about "total information access" or whatever they call it. But in fact, sheer information alone is useless. I was at Quantico a few years ago presenting a research project and during a presentation, the director of this program emphasized that current technology gives them boatloads of data, the rub is in making sense of it and presenting in a useful way -- both to the soldier and to the people at base camp (or whatever.) So just strapping a GPS module, encrypted digital radio, digicam, etc. on a soldier's back isn't neccessarily useful for anyone involved. Somehow you've got to figure out how to make it all useful.

  4. Re:Good Riddance by x0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having been a Marine for a number of years, I have to call bullshit on this. Unless you are incompetent, *never* cleaned your rifle, or are incapable of grasping the concept of proper lubrication, M16s just work.

    In all of the years I qualified on the KD (Known Distance) course, I had only one failure to feed (which can happen to *any* semi-auto firearm), and I never had a 'jam'. Of the others firing the same course with me that did have jams, the overwhelming majority were due to having a 'dry rifle'; ie: no, or improper lubrication. The others did have mechanical failures, but that is to be expected when you consider the age and actual use of those rifles.

    To answer to some of the other replies below: M16s are pretty damned accurate as well with the proper load. The Army Marksmanship Unit shoots the M16 now... And they have won some pretty tough matches with those rifles. Even out to 1000 yards. I left the Corps a few years back, but it wouldn't shock me to hear that the USMC Rifle Team switched from the M14 to the M16.

    For what its worth, with the exception of boot camp and the first year afterward, I qualified expert every year averaging 230 out of a possible 250 points. (And 286 out of 300 shooting an off the rack M16 on the NRA High Power course during Marine intramural competition.)

    --
    In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
  5. Power Source by Bugmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    All this sounds great, but where will the gear draw its power from ? At 50lbs, it doesn't seem like the standard lead-acid batteries are an option.

    In fact, power storage is really what is hampering any major advances into the portable, semi-autonomous electronics. Wireless phones, laptops, robotic flies, cybersoldiers, etc. -- we need some sort of a major breaktrhough in power storage until we can produce actual designs as opposed to mockups that you need to plug into the wall socket.

    --
    >|<*:=