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"
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?
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
Aircraft cannot take and hold territory. They can only deny it to the enemy.
Read Clausewicz, then get back to me.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
A victory doesn't count until you have a 19 year old with a rifle standing on that bit of ground.
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.
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.
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
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"?
"A victory doesn't count until you have a 19 year old with a rifle standing on that bit of ground."
A victory doesn't count until you win the hearts and minds, one way or another, of the people who live on the ground where the 19 year old is standing. As long as there are people with weapons, and the will to resist, who see the 19 year old as a target you haven't really won anything.
"For, although one may be very strong in armed
forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives"
Machiavelli, "The Prince"
Not sure the doctrine that you have victory when you have a guy with a rifle standing on captured ground has worked since World War I and it didn't really work then either.
@de_machina
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.