Slashdot Mirror
Land Warrior Army Suits Simplified, Linux-ized
Dosco Jones writes 'The Army is drastically simplifying the makeup of its high-tech soldier ensemble, the Land Warrior, in an effort to make the system less prone to failures and easier to use,' National Defense reports. Defense Tech continues: 'After the last version of Land Warrior failed reliability tests earlier this year, the Army switched gears and decided to make the system less complex and modify the hardware to make it compatible with the new [and controversial] Stryker infantry vehicle. Changes include a more simplified data bus and a Linux-based operating system, as opposed to Windows. 'Evidence shows that Linux is more stable. We are moving in general to where the Army is going, to Linux-based OS', says the program's manager, Lt. Col. Dave Gallop."
The Military Analysis Network has a more complete description of the Landwarrior's various subsystems. Sounds like you would need a very stable OS to handle all the communications, geographic, thermal imaging, and directional software it must be running.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/gro und/iav.htm
"In February 2002 the Army named its new interim armored vehicle after two soldiers who received the Medal of Honor. The Stryker is named in honor of Spc. 4 Robert F. Stryker, who received the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Vietnam War, and Pfc. Stuart S. Stryker, who received the award for his actions during World War II. Both men were killed in action. They were not related."
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiib1.htm
"Rank and organization. Private First Class, U.S. Army, Company E, 513th Parachute Infantry, 17th Airborne Division. Place and date: Near Wesel, Germany, 24 March 1945. Entered service at: Portland, Oreg. Birth. Portland, Oreg. G.O. No.: 117, 11 December 1945. Citation. He was a platoon runner, when the unit assembled near Wesel, Germany after a descent east of the Rhine. Attacking along a railroad, Company E reached a point about 250 yards from a large building used as an enemy headquarters and manned by a powerful force of Germans with rifles, machineguns, and 4 field pieces. One platoon made a frontal assault but was pinned down by intense fire from the house after advancing only 50 yards. So badly stricken that it could not return the raking fire, the platoon was at the mercy of German machine gunners when Pfc. Stryker voluntarily left a place of comparative safety, and, armed with a carbine, ran to the head of the unit. In full view of the enemy and under constant fire, he exhorted the men to get to their feet and follow him. Inspired by his fearlessness, they rushed after him in a desperate charge through an increased hail of bullets. Twenty-five yards from the objective the heroic soldier was killed by the enemy fusillades. His gallant and wholly voluntary action in the face of overwhelming firepower, however, so encouraged his comrades and diverted the enemy's attention that other elements of the company were able to surround the house, capturing more than 200 hostile soldiers and much equipment, besides freeing 3 members of an American bomber crew held prisoner there. The intrepidity and unhesitating self-sacrifice of Pfc. Stryker were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service."
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohviet2.htm
"Rank and organization: Specialist Fourth Class, U.S. Army, Company C, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Loc Ninh, Republic of Vietnam, 7 November 1967. Entered service at: Throop, N.Y. Born: 9 November 1944, Auburn, N.Y. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sp4c. Stryker, U.S. Army, distinguished himself while serving with Company C. Sp4c. Stryker was serving as a grenadier in a multicompany reconnaissance in force near Loc Ninh. As his unit moved through the dense underbrush, it was suddenly met with a hail of rocket, automatic weapons and small arms fire from enemy forces concealed in fortified bunkers and in the surrounding trees. Reacting quickly, Sp4c. Stryker fired into the enemy positions with his grenade launcher. During the devastating exchange of fire, Sp4c. Stryker detected enemy elements attempting to encircle his company and isolate it from the main body of the friendly force. Undaunted by the enemy machinegun and small-arms fire, Sp4c. Stryker repeatedly fired grenades into the trees, killing enemy snipers and enabling his comrades to sever the attempted encirclement. As the battle continued, Sp4c. Stryker observed several wounded members of his squad in the killing zone of an enemy claymore mine. With complete disregard for his safety, he threw himself upon the mine as it was detonated. He was mortally wounded as his body absorbed the blast and shielded his comrades from the explosion. His unselfish actions were responsible for saving the lives of at least 6 of his fellow soldiers. Sp4c. Stryker's great personal bravery was in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the U.S. Army."
Actually, it's not all bid on now.
If there is a product that is better than the others out there, or a specialized product that no one else makes the DoD can buy it outright, do a streamlined bid process or allocate money to commanders or even issue money to a soldier to make up for thier personal purchase.
Theres a file I found in July talking about what worked and didn't work in Iraq in the equipment the soldiers used, and they covered all sorts of things, from sniper scopes, to Talkabouts to Camelback water bags.
There was an issue about the Camelbacks the DoD had bought not being as good as some soldiers mail-ordered and that they needed to find out what was up with the current DoD models from thier order.
Thanks for the thought, though!
I got out in 2000, but I was still in the USMC (0311, grunt, qty. 1) when we switched from the old LPC (Leather Personnel Carrier) to the new boot. I didn't get to try the desert boot, but I really liked the ICB, the first version was a bit hot/heavy, but I have heard from buddies that it is better now.
"I'm about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminate justice!"
"Land Warrior Initial Capability" (LW-IC) was supposed to be the first step in a long process of networking soldiers together. Each fighter would get equipped with a small, 500 megahertz computer running Windows 2000, a radio, a customized rifle and a helmet-mounted display eyepiece. All of these would be linked together. And all that a soldier sees or says could be sent to each other or to headquarters.
and the findings were:
the system was deemed 'unreliable' and unlikely to survive the rigors of combat
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Tires are a very good idea. They are much quieter than tracked vehicles and more agile in certain terrain than tracks. Wheeled vehicles are also usually faster. (The tires on Stryker are also run-flat, so they aren't going to be stuck if even all eight tires go flat.)
Because the development of Stryker was fairly quick, there was no requirment for it to have RPG resistant armor from the very beginning. It will eventually feature armor which can withstand RPGs which is in testing right now.
I think you're confusing Stryker's mission. It's not for attacking other armored vehicles, it's for transporting troops where they're needed in a rapid manner. The guns on it are for defensive purposes. The Army isn't stupid, they wouldn't send Strykers into risky situations without proper support from vehicles and aircraft which are meant to destroy moving armored targets.
My other SIG is a 9mm.
The army's been very good about its transformation plan. In case some /. readers haven't heard it in its full glory, here it is:
OK, pre-9/11, the Army embarked on a very controversial plan. Basically, they looked at all the wars that we have any realistic chance of being in. Then they looked at what we have to fight them.
The problem was this: we have oodles of heavy tanks, which pretty much kick all kinds of ass. But they can only win where they can be brought to bear. They're so heavy that they require massive transportation time and cost (not to mention a friendly port to set up in). Another problem is that while tracked vehicles can be heavier and go places that wheeled vehicles can't, they are very maintenance intensive. They need lots of fuel and spare parts, which requires still more ships or a massive airlift.
Bottom line: unless we're fighting on the Korean penninsula or in Europe, where were pre-positioned, it would take six months to fight a war anywhere, and that's assuming we had a friendly neighbor to give us a place to set up in.
The result was the Army transformation plan. The idea is that they would get phase out most of their heavy tank divisions, and replace them with smaller, modular formations called Brigade Combat Teams. The BCT's job would be this: assuming the Air Force can clear a drop zone, we ought to be able to put a brigade anywhere in the world, opposed or not, within 96 hours of the President saying so. Four brigades within 14 days, and more (I don't remember how many) within 90 days. That's even if we drop in the middle of a shooting enemy.
One way we could do this was to get a vehicle that could be a little less armed and armored, and could be a little less mobile, but MUST be air-transportable. That's the Stryker. Think of it (excuse the roleplaying reference) as an Omnimech: a vehicle that is designed to be reconfigurable to do lots of different missions. So there's a communications loadout, and a tank-killer loadout and an infantry-carrier loadout, and lots more.
Post 9/11 lessons have been mixed. On one hand, invincible tanks in Germany did us absolutely no good when we suddenly found ourselves at war in Afghanistan. On the other, when we had a year to move them to Iraq, our tanks did extremely well-- and as DefenseTech points out, absorbs fire that would have destroyed Strykers. The gripping hand is that long occupations like Iraq are better suited to Strykers, LAV's or armored Hummers than to heavy tanks and APC's.
So, like most things, one tech isn't necessarily better or worse than another. You use whatever best fits the situation you're in. On that basis, I like the Stryker. An all-Stryker Army? No. But it is a very valuable program.
Most American war plans in the 90's were built around the idea of a set-piece conflict with an adversary (like China, Iraq or North Korea) that while not exactly equal in technology was at least comparable. 9/11 proved that asymmetrical conflicts would also happen: conflicts where the enemy's main goal is to demoralize our political leadership because they can't defeat us militarily.
And in those cases, we can't count on someone granting us entry, we may need to move very fast, and it might be in some remote corner of the world, far from our forces.
Related to that is improved command and control. Many of our casualties in the Gulf War were friendly-fire, so the Army worked on reducing that, too. Vehicles can now see on a map where others in their unit are (just like in a first-person shooter like BF1942). The problem is that the equipment is still too heavy and battery-draining to be useful for infantry. Hopefully, a vehicle-run 'subnet' can help alleviate this. And running it w/ Linux will hopefully improve efficiency and reliability.
Overall, I think the Army's on the right track with this. I'd hate to lose our heavy tank divisions-- those come in mighty handy. But a less powerful force that can actually get to the battle is better than an invincible juggernaut that is stranded somewhere else.
I know the parent is being funny, but here's a little less funny but more real info from the inside of the process.
According to the Federal Acquisition Rules (FAR), the contract selection must go to those who provide "best value". "Least bid" is only appropriate when all other factors weight out equally. This assumes that the contracting office is following all the rules, or at least trying to.
Now, these factors we're talking about are all laid out in the publications soliciting industry input or proposals. Such things as previous contractor performance, technical approach, capabilities proposed vs requirements, the proposed contractor team composition, timelines, certifications like ISO 9000 are used as criteria, or a super- or sub-set of this list. Then the source selection team, which can be very small or very large, goes through each and every one of the proposals received and weighs them up according to criteria estabilished before hand. These criteria are weighed, such as TECHNICAL and TEAM SKILLS being twice as important as any of the rest. COST is one of the factors weighed, but it has been generally accepted that the only person who weights COST to be of equal or higher weight than the other factors combined is a complete idiot because history has show this to be the recipe for a complete catastrophe and waste of taxpayers' money.
Of course, requirements are the biggest thing in all proper acquisitions. If you don't match up to the requirements, or you can't get there in a series of upgrades or refinements, it doesn't matter how cheap you are. But the real catch is how the requirements are written. If, for example appropriate to this audience, they are written in such a way that only a particular operating system can match up, then only the proposals outlining a system built on that operating system can possibly make it past the first cut. This happens when the requirement writer can't separate his vision for HOW the thing should be built from WHAT it needs to DO. And let's face it: the requirement writer is almost certainly too close to the problem to be able to think of unique or elegant ways to solve the problem with the least resources required. He's more likely to be thinking, "I want a thing that does this, which should be like this thing I already have, only MORE SO." And if what you have is a Windows system, and that's all you know (or you're frightened by this Linux/*BSD/etc stuff), then you'll write the requirements to fit what you know.
This isn't to say that requirement writers are particularly bad or unqualified people. Some of them are truly excellent. Most just need some training in how to stay in their lanes.
No, the bad people are the ultraconservative, underinformed, technically no-longer-qualified information security people. They don't like anything that hasn't been previously approved by their organization. Anything new must jump through a hoops process that by the minimum timeline takes YEARS, and they'll change the process twice during your progress and require you to start over. They won't get involved in your acquisition process because they "haven't got time for that", but they have time to tell you to re-engineer the entire system after you spend four years building it because it doesn't fit in with some asinine security regulation that either didn't exist when you started, or is so outdated that it qualified for social security, and almost certainly isn't applicable to your system. You can't argue against them because that would be arguing against SECURITY, and you might as well be questioning the value of MOM and APPLE PIE in their eyes. Their simple word can cost a colonel his star, or a GS-15 his SES, so you've got to be backed up one that a) has a lot of balls; b) takes you seriously; and c) is convinced he should do the job right and the star will attend to itself; to have any chance.
And how did I come up with these wild revelations about contracting in the government? Well the first half is straight out of t