Slashdot Mirror


US Army Considers a Smartphone For Every Soldier

destinyland writes "The US Army is seriously considering the idea of issuing a smartphone to every soldier, and they're already modernizing one Texas brigade 'through a range of electronic devices that will include not just smartphones but tablet devices, e-reader and mini-projectors.' The company that developed Patriot missiles has already created several dedicated military apps for both iPhone and Android phones, including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield. Interestingly, the army is likely to use an off-the-shelf model, heightening the war between Apple and Android phones. Apple's non-replaceable batteries may become an issue in the field, since 'plugging the phone in to recharge isn't always a viable option in the middle of combat.'"

48 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Not now Mom by Cidtek · · Score: 5, Funny

    I gotta get back to ya later Mom - I'm kinda engaged right now.

    1. Re:Not now Mom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the conscientious one. The regular guy will be like "Gotta get back to you later, sir, I am updating my status now".

      But actually you should not read too much into it. This is just another money grab from the military -- they, and their contractor friends must be getting hungry on the lean offerings of Obama's budget.

    2. Re:Not now Mom by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea, funny mental picture, but I remember as far back as 1999 getting a call on my cell from a friend while in the middle of combat training. Apparently she was freaking out for the next day or two because she heard gunfire and explosions in the background, with me saying "kinda busy, call ya back".

    3. Re:Not now Mom by russ1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I had a similar experience. A few years ago I was trying to keep contact with a girl while I was away, so gave her a call while on an exercise. During the call she said 'what is that banging noise?' ... 'oh that, that's just some artillery fire... so anyway, what are you wearing?'

    4. Re:Not now Mom by jimbolauski · · Score: 2

      Yes but it is military policy that hands free devices must be used while engaging the target, safety is a number one priority.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  2. Didn't they just ban by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Didn't they just ban all portable mass storage devices as security risks? I mean what do they think these smart phones are?

    1. Re:Didn't they just ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't they just ban all portable mass storage devices as security risks? I mean what do they think these smart phones are?

      I don't think it being a "portable mass storage device" will be a problem since it won't be able to connect to their machines. Though handing every solder a small, portable video/photo camera with instant upload capabilities might not be a smart idea...

    2. Re:Didn't they just ban by Beerdood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I mean what do they think these smart phones are?

      Another method of turning taxpayer money into corporate profit

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    3. Re:Didn't they just ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realise most phones these days can be connected as mass storage via USB? Then there's WLAN, Bluetooth, IrDA, Screen codes, Accustic coupling.... there are literally thousands of ways to get big amounts of data out of an Computer with a Smartphone.

    4. Re:Didn't they just ban by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Of course when it comes to control freaks no one can match military officers, no matter how incompetent they are at it. Smartphones for every soldier so;

      24/7 monitoring of location
      The military own the phone and the service person so random activation recording and computer analysis of the phones microphone
      Always on call no refusal

      So the military is the ideal place to test digital enslavement of the populace, next parolees, then the general populace for any misdemeanour activity like not being rich or being a member of the wrong political party.

      So overall really rather off, as there is no real battle field application as they are tied to a public frequency so jamming is to be expected if they were actually used.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Didn't they just ban by gig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > what do they think these smart phones are?

      They think they are computers that don't require you to have a desk. That is all. They have already replaced many PC's with iPod touch, because they look at it as a mobile PC, and they value mobility. That is why the US military is really interested in iPads.

      iOS devices do not attach as USB mass storage. You have to add an app like Air Sharing (which is easily prohibited by a device policy) just to see a file system.

    6. Re:Didn't they just ban by Confusador · · Score: 2

      I think the key is that it's not a mass storage device, it's another computer on the network. As such, they will have ways of controlling what is contained on it the way they do with all their other machines. And since they presumably already deal with laptops, they should already understand the risks of portability and have procedures in place. The problem with dumb storage devices is that you can never have that control.

    7. Re:Didn't they just ban by 1u3hr · · Score: 2
      there are literally thousands of ways to get big amounts of data out of an Computer with a Smartphone.

      I wish people wouldn't say "literally" when they're obviously wildly exaggerating.

    8. Re:Didn't they just ban by BranMan · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I must hear that a thousand times a day. Literally! Drives me nuts.

  3. This doesn't sound like a good idea by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I haven't seen much consumer electronics equipment that could survive a combat environment. Seems like just the sand alone in Iraq would mess up a lot of devices pretty quick.

    And that's the thing -- it's all well and good to say that a certain piece of equipment will give soldiers some kind of advantage, but after a while the "advantage" becomes the norm. What happens then, when a piece of equipment that a soldier has come to rely upon just stops working? Do they carry on like before they had the equipment, or does what was once an advantage become a disadvantage, as the soldiers have to essentially retrain themselves on the fly?

    Batteries, cracked screens, fouled-up input devices, software bugs... there's a reason why equipment designed for the military costs so much more than consumer equipment..

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt this is intended for the battlefield. Remember,soldiers spend 99.999% of their time not in combat, doing training or planning or arranging to get from point a to point b or whatever. The smarphones would probably fill a similar role as they do in any modern corporation, having little direct involvement in actual combat operations for the foreseeable future.

    2. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was thinking that as well, then I read -

      "including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield" and "isn't always a viable option in the middle of combat". So I'm actually wondering what they're going to be doing with them. It'd be rather sensless to take smartphones with you to get mud, sand, shrapnel and whatever on them. And when are you supposed to use them? "Yeah I'm pinned down. Let me take a picture of the guy shooting at us, maybe we'll see him again later"

        If its just for stuff like wanting to find out whether your friend's in the mess hall or taking a nap or whatever would be fine. But then why do the batteries matter?

    3. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't/Shouldn't they rather use military-grade equipment for that? Like a radio? Are they not equipped with this sort of thing already? Stuff that can survive being dropped in mud, stepped on and get singed by an IED?

    4. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I know, but parse out what the army is actually considering, vs. what some company is pushing at them. Here's more of the quote you provided: "The company that developed the Patriot missile system has created several dedicated military apps for both systems, including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield."

      Defense contractors everwhere are spinning off imaginative "apps" on how these things might be used. I still think the Army's actual implementation (if any) will be much, much less ambitious.

    5. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I haven't seen much consumer electronics equipment that could survive a combat environment.

      I would bet that military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan are far better equipped when it comes to "consumer electronics" than your average Slashdot user.

      They've got so many laptops, tablets, game consoles and handheld gaming systems, portable DVD players, digital cameras, iPads etc that I'm surprised there's any time left for gay sex or torture. Seriously, a family member in Kandahar is always after me to send him cracked PC and console games. And yes, they've got modded consoles in Kandahar. (Hey Zipper, I know you're reading this! I'm banging your wife right now! Keep your head down, junior. The girls send their love.)

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the most successful snipers in history shot with iron sights.

      I know EVERY company is trying to make stuff so that skilled labor is no longer needed. (The newest bulldozers and motor graders use joysticks, no more long training on hydraulic levers).

    7. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      There is probably a real military use to a smartphone. But to a real military smartphone. One that has default encryption on, that has a "total emission silence" mode, that has a standard battery slot that can be used on many equipments, that resist shocks, power surges, that work well in area with bad coverage, that boots really quickly, that has shortcuts for urgence situation, that has a LOUD mode that can be heard inside an armored transport.

      I am curious why the army didn't develop their own smartphone. Probably hardened and weighting three time an iPhone, and probably with a funky acronym as a name.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    8. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      I know EVERY company is trying to make stuff so that skilled labor is no longer needed. (The newest bulldozers and motor graders use joysticks, no more long training on hydraulic levers).

      There is nothing intrinsically "skilled" about a control system designed in the early 1900's, as opposed to the early 2000's. You do not eliminate the need for skilled labour by changing the user interface...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by Y-Crate · · Score: 2

      I am curious why the army didn't develop their own smartphone. Probably hardened and weighting three time an iPhone, and probably with a funky acronym as a name.

      You forgot the part where each one costs $45,000 and is really just a hardened Atari Portfolio with WiFi.

    10. Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea by vlm · · Score: 2

      This is honestly a freaking *great* idea. Do you know how most messages pass around in a deployed environment now? They send someone- a "runner" from one end of the post to another. It is the most ludicrous thing I've ever seen. We spent all this money developing the encryption infrastructure that civilians use at the drop of a dime(literally!) and we can't take advantage of that for passing messages around a post? Especially time-sensitive information? It's past time that we put some of the star-trek technology we've developed to use.

      Civilians don't have eavesdroppers paying attention to traffic timing patterns. ("For the previous ten incidents, five encrypted undecodable messages are transmitted precisely 45 minutes before the generals humvee leaves the compound. We just monitored five encrypted messages. Prepare the ambush, troops")

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  4. Upload to Wikileaks by commlinx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Upload to Wikileaks, is there an app for that?

  5. not on the main app store by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2

    not on the main app store.

    1. Re:not on the main app store by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Jail-breaking is hardly an option in the army... I mean... just look at Bradley.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  6. brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how much other Chinese electronics it'll be a good idea to use on the battlefield.

    User space apps by DARPA. Rootkit by the the PLA.

  7. What about the other way around? by papaia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd rather have a Smartsoldier for Every Phone

    --
    == With enough Will Power, one could move mountains. With enough Brains, one would just leave them where they are ==
    1. Re:What about the other way around? by MacroMegaMan · · Score: 2

      Dude, I've seen a Soldier outsmarted by an aluminum door. Worst thing was that he even *admitted* his defeat to the door to our 1SG...

  8. Re:Sexting in the fox hole? by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't you just hate it when you're driving down the street, guy is driving a heavy tank while talking to his girlfriend?

  9. First one to light up gets smoked! by Hartree · · Score: 2

    So, you're going to put a comm device on every soldier that emits RF much of the time?

    You better seed the whole place with decoy receiver transmitters or relay devices.

    Else a military with any level of technical sophistication will use it to target and trigger munitions.

    (I had a similar idea when I was in the Army still in the 80s. But it involved specifically putting out more decoys to act as relays than there were soldiers/real radios. Some of them moving, so that wouldn't be a way to decide which was real. Wasn't very practical at the time due to limits on the computing power available.)

    1. Re:First one to light up gets smoked! by Hartree · · Score: 2

      Yes, they do have them in urban environments especially. But, issuing identical type smart phones to all your soldiers tags them even then.

      So what if there are a few journalists or civilian with the same phones are among them? Would that stop someone if they could get, say, 45% of the time a soldier?

      And out in the back areas where the population density is low, the rate is even better.

      And, if you're going to use the phones in those back areas for more than voice, you have to have a reasonably modern cell network. So, the army sets one up. Even better. They'll probably encrypt it, so if you can't read the traffic, just blow it up to be sure.

      Even today, in our highly wired developed world, radio silence had a definite place. If I'm going to be carrying something that chirps every few millisconds to seconds, I want to be able to silence it.

      And, BTW, walking up to 100 meters from the objective and then suddenly ceasing all the radio emissions the opposing force has been seeing is another Big Clue(tm) that something is about to happen.

  10. Joke right? by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I gotta get back to ya later Mom - I'm kinda engaged right now.

    What if I told you me and 10+ other guys saw 'AFK: Real War' from an actual soldier in Afghanistan playing a war simulation at that time?

    (not naming any names including game)

    1. Re:Joke right? by shiftless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Afghanistan? Yeah, they pretty much are. But even if they weren't, what's to stop the US Army from running their own mobile cell networks? You could easily integrate a cell transponder into a Humvee or MRAP, and/or established fixed stations at FOBs, and all of the data could be routed through existing SATCOM equipment to SIPRNET.

      This is a really good idea, but I foresee this program is gonna be something that requires custom hardware development. Off the shelf smart phones aren't gonna cut it. For one, how are you gonna see the screen at night, without it lighting up your position to the enemy just as good as if you'd shined a flashlight in your face? It would need to work in very dark (tactical) conditions, be usable by soldiers wearing gloves, be durable enough to withstand combat, etc.

      Can you imagine a device like this on every soldier's wrist that instantly shows him the location of allies and fellow soldiers, suspected enemies, etc, plotted out on an overhead map with actual satellite photos of terrain, and real time GPS positioning? Like FalconView (and already existing system used on PCs) it could show the positions of minefields, previously reported encounters with enemy forces, all kinds of details. How about if it could plot a route for a soldier from point A to point B, with the best use of cover, using all the information currently available, say if he is unfamiliar with the terrain and the squad leader just got shot? For those with a security clearance (squad leader, radio man, etc), it could be integrated with the existing IRC networks on SIPRNET to let him view real time text chatter about the tactical situation. I mean there is a billion ways this technology could be used to great benefit on today's and tomorrow's battlefield.

    2. Re:Joke right? by master_p · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are right. Fighting goat herders with outdated rifles has never been so challenging.

    3. Re:Joke right? by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know you were being sarcastic but it probably has never been so challenging. Going all the way back to our own revolution a bunch of farmers with out data rifles managed to defeat British regular army, although with some French assistance. Its also true at the time there was less separation between a hunting rifle and an army rifle in terms of tech.

      Here we are in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting farmers with outdated rifles and help from Iran, Syria, and likely Pakistan. They have the benefit of history to know what works and what does not against a superior force and lots of them have experience fighting the Russian army. Their tech might be a little outdated but its also true a 35 year old Russian AK is still plenty lethal, as are left over Rocket propelled grenades and launchers we gave them. There are probably a fare number of single shot WWI and WWII era rifles we gave them to fight the Russians still floating about as well.

      So yes it really has never been harder and asymmetric warfare has not really been easy for two centuries; with the possible exception of the Mexican War.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Joke right? by stdarg · · Score: 2

      So yes it really has never been harder and asymmetric warfare has not really been easy for two centuries

      The goals of war have never been harder than they are today.

      We want a war, but we go out of our way to protect civilians, even those who support the enemy. We want to respect other cultures. We want to prosecute our own soldiers for war crimes that in the past would not be considered crimes. We have goals like "bring democracy" and "win hearts and minds" -- things that past wars did not give a crap about.

      I mean, asymmetric warfare has always been hard, but it's a lot harder than it has been in the past not due to our enemy or any physical conditions or weapons technology, but because of our cultural conditions.

    5. Re:Joke right? by lxs · · Score: 2

      When your kill ratio is 100:1 you should STFU about it being challenging or even about it being war.

    6. Re:Joke right? by jewens · · Score: 2

      I thought one of the reasons the American Revolution was won was because the farmers used their hunting rifles while the professional soldiers used standard issue muskets.

      --
      That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
  11. Re:Think of the social networking aspect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mrs Smith has changed her relationship status to Single.

  12. more proof defense spending is out of control by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    conservatives should be all over cutting frivolous defense spending like this.

  13. This is my iPhone. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are many others like it, but this one is mine. My iPhone is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my iPhone is useless. Without my iPhone, I am useless. I must text my iPhone true. I must text faster than my mother, who is trying to block me. I must text my friends before she grounds me. I will. Before God I swear this creed: my iPhone and myself are defenders of my social life, we are the masters of our parents, we are the saviors of my social life. So be it, until there is no enemy, but peace. Amen.

    I didn't intend that to be that creepy when I started it, but I think that describes 90% of high school and college students I've interacted with.

    1. Re:This is my iPhone. by vertinox · · Score: 2

      So soldiers are trained to be like teenagers? That is creepy.

      Most soldiers are teenagers.

      (At least the recruits)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  14. Apologies for stating the obvious by Nuke+Bloodaxe · · Score: 2

    "including one that allows soldiers to track colleague's locations on the battlefield."

    Now, lets say I am a soldier that has just been killed. My device does not know this, but the opposing force does. They pickup my phone, start running through a list of who is on the battlefield, and designate where their snipers need to aim.

    Alternatively, opposing force finds device, and now appears on the location system as the soldier. This could be a bit of an issue if they send a message via it for everyone to regroup... or medical evac. I can imagine a well booby trapped body for that.

    My point being: convenience is very nice, but deactivating it on death is vital. This is not something you'll get off-the-shelf, but can be as simple as a plugin heart monitor with password reset in the event of no pulse.

  15. Pretty much by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    That is exactly why whoever wins the contract NEEDS to bring back the manufacturing to America. Considering that Apple has not done manufacturing in decades and never on this scale, then it would make sense for Motorola win.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. Funny how Blackberry isn't mentioned by scottbomb · · Score: 2

    After all, it's the most widely-used smartphone in the Federal government because of it's solid security. Oh and the battery is easily replaced as well.