Slashdot Mirror
More on Next-Generation Army Gear
An anonymous reader writes "The Army is funding development of new super suits. From the article: 'The Army's future soldier will resemble something out of a science fiction movie'. 'The new system has the ability for each soldier to be tied into tactical local and wide-area networks with an onboard computer that sits at the base of the soldier's back' and 'The helmet has sensors that register vibrations of the cranial cavity so [soldiers] don't have to have a microphone'. The article features several photos of the suits."
Who are we going to be fighting with this stuff? Terrorists? Belgium?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
When wars are fought from 15 miles up now anyway?
Remember when the Army made the big announcement about everyone wearing black berets? That took damn near 18 months to implement and no batteries were required. If this happens anytime during our generation I will be stunned. What they really need are a better pair of standard issue boots...that would be money well spent for the soldiers.
It's worth RTFA, because of some absolutely choice quotes:
"the 2020 model will remind you of an ominous creature out of a science fiction movie"
I love the use of "ominous"
"When you have a uniform with this new nanotechnology, it can absorb unlimited numbers of machine-gun rounds,"
Wouldn't that get kind of heavy?
"We are looking at potentially mounting a weapon directly to the uniform system and now the soldier becomes a walking gun platform."
Now THAT sounds like fun...
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Given the amount of electronics and sensors the soldier is wearing, would the army also incorporate "feedback units" like adrenaline injectors and tranquilizers or would it be too prone to hacking?
The guy on the left in this photo looks like a black stormtrooper.
This space intentionally left blank.
I don't think a single one of us who's read the book thought differently when they saw this article.
How about the nano-fibers they're going to produce to increase strength by 25-30%? I'm assuming they'll actually figure that one out at about the same time we get our flying cars.
Ok, some of this stuff would be pretty damn rad. And the idea that the combat gear that will be available in 2020 will "absorb unlimited numbers of machine-gun rounds" is all nice and everything (although, the fact that Jean-Louis "Dutch" DeGay keeps dropping the word "nanotechnology" makes me hesitant). But how the hell is this all going to be powered? Health monitors, WAN, radio, fancy optical display, etc, plus all of the other gear they need (lights, night-vision, etc), plus a power supply of some sort (battery/solar?) all super rugid and topping out at 50 pounds (~23 KG). I wish them the best, but right now, I don't think so.
Casual Games/Downloads
Judging by the screenshots, they are using Windows.
Sometimes the majority just means all the morons are on the same side.
"To the everlasting glory of the infantry
shines the name
shines the name
of Rodger Young!"
From the hi-res looks of things, the year 2020 soldier (on the left in black) is gonna promote friendly fire casualties with his mask all fogged up.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
I think the worst thing about the movie they made is that it'll almost certainly prevent an accurate movie translation of the novel from ever being made, and that's quite sad - there are some powerful messages in the novel. *sigh*
Terrorists will concentrate on building EMP bombs.
Technoli
They say the Soilder of the futures gear will weigh only 50 pounds.
Since WWI the full combat gear has always weighed 120 pounds.
It will just allow you to carry more ammo into the combat zone. TaDa! 120 pounds again.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
If you've got a robotic exoskeleton and a wide area network, why not just pilot the soldier remotely?
Seems to make a lot more sense than still sending a real person in... plus the army would have no trouble getting recruits to play counterstrike.
actually the romans tried that one, it didn't work
Think of it this way... The armed forces are looking for more recruits so what better way to attract that target group of males age 18 to 25 (other than reinstituting the draft) than to promise soldiers really high-tech toys... c'mon who doesn't want a magic suit that not only has a computer (with a HUD!) built in to it, but also has that crazy super-strength nanotech armor!
We did this in Afghanistan.
We outsourced the fight with Russia to Al Queda.
Look what that got us.
Politicians, bullshit artists, college kids, and people who don't have to wear/live with the bullshit can't possibly appreciate just how stupid the "future warrior" plan is.
This whole "future" warrior schtick will complicate soldier's life (hauling 150lbs of crap everywhere you go, being accountable for it and its condition, and having to haul your wounded buddies ass out of 'the shit'), which is hard enough as it is. The Pentagon needs to leave the toys in the locker and make better decisions. The things I always thought about when I was 'humpin' around with my lpc's and m16 with alice on my back were something like this...
Light, effective weapons (caseless ammo, call-home capability, lightweight/composite tech, and imprinting to the soldier are do-able)
Miniturized/ruggedized commo which works with implanted chips (if you're a soldier, your ass is 0wn3d anyway) which give biotelemetry without bullshit readouts. Only the medic/commanders need to see what condition a soldier is in. They could even aggregate the data.
Limb-replacement tech...yes, regrow your amputated bits. Rehabilitiation tech needs to pull its sorry butt into the new century.
Immune system amping (be able to eat/drink just about anything), better treatments for bacterial infections and 'derm' tech which would give the soldier a patch that would help sustain their opitate/endorphin/adrenaline balances...combat the stress of combat. When people aren't going apeshit in-ranks casualties are significantly reduced (yes, a chemical-control cocktail). Got a buddy who has crapped himself after that last RPG took out the track behind yours? Just step on his neck and slap one of these patches on his ass and don't worry about him hosing everyone in a panic.
Good food.
The ability to eat anything would be helpful too.
Oh, and having the soldiers adapt to and understand the culture they're going to be fighting with/in. There's more than one way to win a war.
Yeah, as usual, compared to what would really make a difference (don't even go towards the "not fight in the first place" argument--humanity sucks) a bunch of neato armor bits and some computer stuff is really a very easy way out.
Cheers.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
I can see into the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology out my cube window... we joke about the damn gnats in the office being nano-soldier transports.
When they opened the ISN, they had a big shindig in the courtyard, and they were showing off some of this stuff. Its not a matter of "I'm assuming they'll actually figure that one out at about the same time we get our flying cars." its a matter of "I'm assuming they'll actually figure out how to manufacture these at a reasonable cost by 2020."
These are plans for technologies they're already fairly along with, not pie-in-the-sky stuff.
Money would be better spent teaching the solders the local langauge, customs and religion. Have you seen those videos of US solders busting into Iraq homes and yelling in English?! Gee I wonder why they hate us. If they are wearing silly hi-tech suits they'll be even more alien.
Dead is dead. The problem is that Americans only give a shit when it is an American who got whacked. Who do you think suffered more civilian casualties in the latest gulf war, the US or Iraq? And military casualties? And the horror is that IED's are designed for maximum collateral damage? How about cluster bombs (as far away from surgical as you can get)? Depleted Uranium (will be killing for the next 300,000 years)? 30mm auto cannon (round 1 is on target, the next 30 are all over the place)? Half retarded 19 year old hicks from backwater USA (you wouldn't trust this idiot to make you a burger, but you give him a rifle, and a get out of jail free card)? Each of those produces exponentially more collateral damage than an IED, but most Americans could not care less. "Oh poor Timmy Bob Smith, got his hand blown off on patrol, that is horrible, those savages. I heard Timmy killed a whole Iraqi family at a wedding the day before, stupid sand niggers, should know better than to celebrate when the cav comes to town"
Oh, and MOST 2000lb bombs were filled with concrete? Right, of course they were. I mean, why not pay to fly a loadout of practice munitions into the fight. I think its more likely that just enough were dropped so the commanders could say "were trying". The vast majority were standard 2000lb "hot" drops.
Yes, unfortunately the last incarnation I saw added some serious weight to the gun, which is really a bad thing. I'm not sure if the problem is old tech or lack of milspec tech. Gun sights have to take a fair bit of abuse, and big, heavy, unbalanced games are a problem in combat. I suspect the best option would be a custom gun made for the role, with better recoil absorbtion, integrated electronics housing, and purpose built grips so the whole hand stays protected.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Note that "best intel apparatus currently available" is not nearly the same thing as "best intel apparatus currently possible", "best intel apparatus currently affordable", or "best intel apparatus currently cost-effective".
Nor does your objection take into account factors like political will and competence.
9/11 didn't happen because it just wasn't possible to get the necessary intel. 9/11 happened because of 20+ years of just not caring enough to look into it.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Actually the trend in small arms for the past 50 years has been steadily downward -- shorter range and less powerful rounds. There are two interrelated reasons for this.
First, outside of the sniper role, a high-power round like .30-06 (or even 7.62 NATO) is overkill; in most situations an infantryman isn't going to be doing aimed fire past 200 - 300 meters, so small arms that are effective out to 600 - 1000 meters just aren't needed. Current doctrine says that anything more than 200 meters away is engaged with heavy weapons (heavy machine gun, rocket launcher, artillery, air strike, etc). If you have soldiers with exoskeletons, this will let you take your heavy weapons off of the HMMV and have them hand-carried by your exos instead. Other than that, tactical doctrine doesn't change much if at all.
Second, if each round is smaller and weighs less, the soldier can either carry more ammo for his weapon or can carry parts & ammo for a squad-level heavy weapon. Having exos doesn't change this -- you're still going to want to keep pretty much the same distribution of weapons in a squad as you have now. The only difference will be that your troops will be able to carry a lot more equipment -- more ammo for their personal weapon and the squad weapon, more food & water, heavier armor, etc.
It's important to remember that infantry combat is a team sport. Each soldier's gear is tailored to maximize the entier team's effectiveness, not necessarily his individual effectiveness. This means that the gear which is appropriate for a member of an infantry squad in a combined arms unit isn't necessarily going to be ideal for individual survival or for use by irregular forces (partisans/militia).
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
It's "easy" to kill a tank. 10 inches of armour and a 20kg shoulder fired missile can still kill it.
You can power an exoskeleton suit with batteries, fuel cell, gas turbine, whatever but all that energy you are using ends up as heat anyway, wearing it you are going to be lit up like a christmas tree in the infrared. The number of machine gun rounds it can absorb will be near irrelevant because the opposition are going to be raining anti-tank armaments down on you.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
The American culture is very well-balanced between personal moral values (religious and/or idealistic), and secular governmental structures. No other country that I am aware of is balanced in quite this way (I was born and have lived outside of the US).
:), and during breakfast while CNN was reporting on another suicide bomb attack against U.S. forces in Iraq, the American beside me pouring his coffee proudly proclaimed, "I say kill 'em all, fucking A-Rabs." I assure you that the reaction from the room was enthusiastically in support of this gentleman. That is your heartland, my friend. That is a bible-thumping, church-going, God-fearing, red-blooded American voter, and that's what his morals told him. I can also tell you that he was by far not the exception around there.
Excuse me for a minute... there are over 260 countries in the world. You are not an expert. I've been to about 13 countries, and to about 70% of the U.S. states, and I am certainly no expert.
Anyway, the U.S. is far from the most secular. The separation of church and state is a myth. I don't need to google some more on that for you, do I?
There are also more democratic nations than the U.S. Switzerland jumps into my mind. In fact, the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy.
So are you saying that American values are based on a song's lyrics? I can tell that you are not American and that you really haven't been around the American hearland by the comments that you make. I am an American, and I can tell you that I won't let my country become a despotic, fascist, secular regime (e.g. -WW II Germany, USSR), nor a religious, totalitarian one (e.g.- Taliban). I can also tell you that I am by far not the exception around here.
My friend, I was visiting your heartland... Alabama actually, staying at a Holiday Inn Express (the last bastion of experts nation-wide
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
The US is a super power, and super powers will always fuck it up. During the Cold War, I think the US had the best intentions and in the end the world was a better place because the US was there, but they certainly fucked up from time to time. The US is run by humans. The system might do a pretty solid job at weeding out truly corrupt and stupid people, but like with any human institution, they tend to creep in no matter how hard you try. I guess my point is that you can never expect the US to be perfect because it never was and never will be. I do think that on the whole though the US has good intentions and generally decent implementation. Just look at the conflicts the US has been in for the past 20 years and the record speaks of generally decent intentions with a couple of horrible mistakes.
To name a few:
Somalia - Best of intentions, feed a starving nation. I have yet to hear a good conspiracy theory as to how this was a plot for US domination. The result though was a cluster fuck that lead to a handful of US and other nationalities getting killed. In the end no one ended up fed (for very long at least) and only more carnage was achieved.
Hattie - Good intentions, restore a democracy. Result? Restored a guy who everyone thought was a saint who (arguably) turned into villain who snatch away democracy. Now there is Hattie 2 where an attempt was made to fix the mistake. If it was worth anyone's time is still yet to be seen.
Serbia - Good intentions, stop a mass genocide. The operation was preformed despite widespread protest both in the US and abroad. After the fact though, you don't hear anyone complaining about the outcome these days. The genocide is over and Serbia is well on its way towards democracy.
Iraq - At the risk of -1 flamebait, I'll just say that in my opinion, it was done with the best intentions. I think the US was genuinely surprised when no chemical weapons were used and the people didn't come out in the street with flowers. Offing an evil dictator isn't a bad thing in it of itself. It is the fact that you need to kill a pile of other people in the process is what makes it bad. I think the jury is still out on this. I look at Iraq like Serbia. At the time it seemed like a dumb idea to a lot of people, but today we recognize it as the right move that ended a genocide. If 10 years from now Iraq looks like Iran, it was probably a failure. If 10 years from now Iraq looks Japan, I think history will forgive the US.
The US is aggressive at time, but I think the world needs a little bit of that. Some times a nation is needed that will crack a few skulls to do what is right. Personally, I like the balance we have today. Europe does an excellent job offering restraint and diplomacy, while the US is generally willing to jump the gun if it thinks those things are taking too long. Diplomacy is not always the answer. I think Rwanda makes it pretty clear that you can't always give the other side more time before you take action. Europe restrains the US from crusading any time they see something wrong, and the US keeps Europe from sitting on its haunches while evil people do their work.
There are several Funny-modded posts pointing out that the 2020 suit looks like a Darth Vader costume. Hell, even the mil spokesman describes it as "ominous". Nobody seems to see this as a drawback. The damn things look evil.
A lot of planning nowadays assumes that the most likely conflict scenarios involving US forces are so-called "fourth-generation wars", where cultural perceptions and media strategy are as important as hardware. The intifada is still the textbook example. Those kids weren't throwing stones because they didn't have access to guns. They were throwing stones because stones against tanks makes a great video-bite for the media.
So: on the "imperial" side we have legions of anonymous mooks in hulking black armour and face-concealing visors. Backed up by horrifying robotic killing machines. On the "rebel" side we have rag-tag, lightly-armed folk in nice earth-hued organic-looking clothing. Got that? Now put it on a TV screen. Regardless of your political views on a given conflict, there is a huge amount of cultural programming that leads Western viewers to root for the rebels. (Non-Western viewers generally don't need much convincing.)
Another, more worrying aspect: there is a lot of experimental and real-world evidence to show that the willingness of troops, police etc to commit atrocities is strongly correlated with their anonymity. Visors and even sunglasses increase the likelihood; big bold nametags reduce it. Anything that makes eye-contact difficult also makes it harder to win the trust of any locals you have to deal with.
And haven't these people even read the Evil Overlord List? It's item #1 for crying out loud!
Rather than finding it offensive, (and I am a fan of Heinlein),
I found the movie something of an extension of the dialogue on civic ethics presented in the book.
The book provided discourse on the moral requisites of enfranchisement.
The movie seemed to examine a darker side of this discussion, and perhaps unconciously created a scenario in which the predominant value system was military rather than civilian.
It was nearly as if Verhoevan was saying
"A society that exists under permanant threat of war is more likely to produce ideal (obediant) citizens".
In the semi-near future, one could maybe see a (few) experimental teams of special forces wearing advanced getups like this, but I suspect the common solider is going to be wearing about the same stuff he has been (more or less) for nearly half a century now.
Maybe someone more in the know could comment, but from snippets I've gathered, current soliders aren't even outfitted with any sort of bullet-proof body armor -- you get a flak jacket, but that has no chance of stopping bullets. I've stumbled upon stories of familes pooling their resources to buy more elaborate body armor... seems rather far fetched to think that if the US doesn't currently outfit soliders with bulletproof armor of whatever type that in the near term any appreciable number are going to be wearing incredible advanced (and even more expensive) super-solider get-up.
I know that armies always prepare for the last war, but this is getting faintly ridiculous.
Large quantities of heavy metal doesn't always achieve the objective. And the US has a consitent record of losing the lot by calling in an airstrike when a cup of tea would have done a better job. This is just more of the same.
If you have a look at what nations with a successful peacekeeping and low intensity warfare record (eg. Finland, the UK and Australia) do, they make sure that they don't look like robocop. They take their helmets off, so that they are regarded as human beings. They're polite (well, politeish). They don't rely on sensor systems; they talk to people.
All the technology in the world won't overcome cluelessness and myopia.