Wanted: Special-Ops Battle Suit With Cooling, Computers, Radios, and Sensors

Ummm..... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:42 · Score: 1

Didn't Tony Stark already invent this?

Re:Ummm..... by wonkey_monkey · 2013-09-06 07:27 · Score: 1

Hah! Is funny because Tony Stark is fictional!

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

The Army is not the only one who wants this by SirGarlon · 2013-09-06 05:42 · Score: 2

Dude, I want a suit like that for myself!

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:47 · Score: 4, Funny

It would indeed be an upgrade from plate armor, Sir Garlon.
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by alen · 2013-09-06 06:07 · Score: 4, Funny

why? you live in Compton or South east LA?
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by Z00L00K · 2013-09-06 06:08 · Score: 1

With a built in cafeteria and ass-wiper.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by SirGarlon · 2013-09-06 06:14 · Score: 2

No, I mostly want it for the air conditioning. And the RF antennas.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by lgw · 2013-09-06 06:38 · Score: 1

This is just it. Forget about "power armor" with weapons, or even armor.
As far back as Sun Tsu, experts in strategy have written that the worst thing you can do to a military force is make them fight in a swap. That's just as important today. A "battle suit" that does nothing more than keep a soldier comfortable and disease-free in a swap would be a vast strategic advantage. It's as big a deal as the whole concept of drones.
Get that working, and an Iron Man suit might be nice in specific cases, but you've already got 90% without armor and weapon links.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:53 · Score: 0

What's a "swap"? What does it mean to fight in one?
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by David_Hart · 2013-09-06 06:53 · Score: 1

As far back as Sun Tsu, experts in strategy have written that the worst thing you can do to a military force is make them fight in a swap. That's just as important today. A "battle suit" that does nothing more than keep a soldier comfortable and disease-free in a swap would be a vast strategic advantage. It's as big a deal as the whole concept of drones.
Get that working, and an Iron Man suit might be nice in specific cases, but you've already got 90% without armor and weapon links.
I think that you meant "swamp" not "swap"... Though I have seen how testy housewives can get at swap meets... (grin)
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by N_Piper · 2013-09-06 07:01 · Score: 2

A powered exoskeleton would make any type of heavy lifting trivial, do you have any idea how many man hours are used unloading a truck at one Walmart every single day?
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by lgw · 2013-09-06 07:16 · Score: 1

hehe, and I got it wrong twice! Genius. And I don't think I can blame spell-checker auto-correct either.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by Lumpy · 2013-09-06 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

A swap is like a Gamer convention. Buttloads of stench and disease. Swapfunk in war will take out your entire army in short order.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by the_B0fh · 2013-09-06 07:26 · Score: 0

Damn. I wish I hadn't commented earlier because I actually have mod points :) And bonus - you even managed to tie it back to the topic!
Someone, mod parent +funny :)
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by wonkey_monkey · 2013-09-06 08:29 · Score: 2

A powered exoskeleton would make any type of heavy lifting trivial
So do tail lifts, forklift trucks, pump trucks, and sack trucks, just like they've had at Walmart for decades. No need to invent the space pen when a pencil will do*.
*yes, I do know that story is apocryphal.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-09-06 08:40 · Score: 1

Contrary to that email, NASA did not spend a penny to develop a space pen. A private company did and then offered them to NASA, who jumped at the opportunity because they were a massive improvement over the grease pencils they had been using. They had to use grease pencils because a floating broken off graphite pencil tip would be a massive health hazard.
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by rtb61 · 2013-09-06 15:19 · Score: 1

In today's, military industrial complex, corporate world, it's all about how to turn individual soldiers into multi-million dollar profit centres. Don't you get it, all those salaries paid to soldiers is lost to corporate coffers, substantively reduce the numbers of soldiers whilst dramatically increasing their equipment costs means increased corporate profits. Bonus each and every time a soldier is killed, basically guarantee millions in increased revenue.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-07 01:40 · Score: 0

A powered exoskeleton would make any type of heavy lifting trivial
So do tail lifts, forklift trucks, pump trucks, and sack trucks, just like they've had at Walmart for decades. No need to invent the space pen when a pencil will do*.
*yes, I do know that story is apocryphal.
Maybe the story about the space pen is apocryphal, but what I heard is this:
The American Space program needed a pen to write in zero-G, and had one devewloped at great expense.
The Soviets used pencils. Their cosmonauts spent a lot of time cleaning pencil shavings out of the air filters on their crafts' air system fans. Presumably also there was a hazard for them to breathe in pencil shavings floating around in zero-G. So which is worse? Maybe the had a sealed zero-G pencil sharpener. I don't know, but the problem is not as simple as it seems at face value.

Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:42 · Score: 1

Sounds like they've been playing too much Crysis.

Re:Uh-oh by HairyNevus · 2013-09-06 07:32 · Score: 1

I was thinking someone at R&D just got into Gantz.

--
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.

Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Tony Stark was preceded by a few decades by Robert Heinlein's Mobile Infantry in Starship Troopers.

Re:Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually more like four years.

Just one question by Ukab+the+Great · 2013-09-06 05:47 · Score: 1

Where do you pee?

Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Wearing that suit, wherever you like....
Re:Just one question by Em+Adespoton · 2013-09-06 06:04 · Score: 2

Where do you pee?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/nasa-osmotic-water-bag/
http://gizmodo.com/the-sweat-to-water-purifier-real-life-dune-still-suit-826806326
Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:24 · Score: 0

Where do you pee?
Think internal waste collection with a special Jarate feature.
Re:Just one question by volxdragon · 2013-09-06 06:26 · Score: 1

ROFL! Oh to have mod points today....
Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:52 · Score: 0

Thank you, thank you, fans!
I'll be here all week.....
Re:Just one question by volmtech · 2013-09-08 01:40 · Score: 1

You mean a NASA astronaut did not come to your school and answer all those questions for you? Going to a Florida elementary school in the 60s had some advantages.

Iron Man by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:49 · Score: 0

Sounds a lot like Iron Man armor to me.

Iron Patriot by hawguy · 2013-09-06 05:49 · Score: 0

I thought the military already built the Iron Patriot suit. Surely they don't think this request is going to get them the real Ironman suit?

Re:Iron Patriot by TemperedAlchemist · 2013-09-06 06:08 · Score: 1

Material science is lagging behind too much.
Re:Iron Patriot by drakaan · 2013-09-06 06:54 · Score: 1

...or maybe not...

--
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Re:Iron Patriot by DarkAce911 · 2013-09-06 08:08 · Score: 2

the materials are fine, what we don't have is the power to run the exosystem.

Look how the military go for the worst SF... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:49 · Score: 0

They won't pay for a Starship, but they want the troopers from one. Guess they would prefer to kill humans rather than the Bugs...

Re:Look how the military go for the worst SF... by Quila · 2013-09-06 05:58 · Score: 1

At least they have the focus tighter. They used to call for these goodies for the general troops, but ordering it only for SOF sounds much closer to the mechanized infantry of ST.
Now if we could only get those drop pods.
Re:Look how the military go for the worst SF... by perpenso · 2013-09-06 06:27 · Score: 1

... the mechanized infantry of ST.
I think it was "mobile infantry" in ST. In Heinlein's day the term "mechanized infantry" was already in use, troops riding in vehicles along side tanks.

Now if we could only get those drop pods.
Personally I'm hoping for something to drop those pods from. :-)
Re:Look how the military go for the worst SF... by Quila · 2013-09-06 06:30 · Score: 1

Thanks for the correction. Time to read the book again, it's obviously been too long.

Unpowered exoskeletons? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 05:51 · Score: 0

The suit also may involve powered or unpowered robotic exoskeletons

How would an unpowered exoskeleton be useful? Wouldn't that be just dead weight?

Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? by cusco · 2013-09-06 05:59 · Score: 1

Prevent broken bones, keep the armor in place, provide mounting points for peripherals, redistribute weight more efficiently.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? by Hognoxious · 2013-09-06 06:06 · Score: 4, Funny

It's what we used to call a suit of armour.
Now get thee hence from mine lawne!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? by cold+fjord · 2013-09-06 06:51 · Score: 1

Sire, once he is clear, shall the raise the shields? .... What about the drawbridge? Oh, and the oil... shall I put the fire out? Or were we expecting more company?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:52 · Score: 0

If the term is being used accurately, there's a distinction between armor and an exoskeleton.
A skeleton (whether endo or exo) provides structural support. Armor, in and of itself, does not.
Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? by Gilmoure · 2013-09-06 07:14 · Score: 1

I could lock my armor knees and it would hold me upright. Helped in those interminably long bridge battles.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

Borat Mankini by Coeurderoy · 2013-09-06 05:52 · Score: 1

That is what would make me feel really safe (preferably as an internationally enforced soldier uniform world wide)
It would also be much cheaper!

Wanted: Stop wasting my money by TheCarp · 2013-09-06 05:57 · Score: 0, Troll

Seriously, stop playing Team America World Police. Stop getting into so many wars and taking so many actions, cut the military....in half or more; and spend a good bit of that money on education here, and developing the technology to colonize space. If you INSIST on making it about war, can't we pretend the next force that will need to be mobilized is on the moon or mars?

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money by intermodal · 2013-09-06 06:07 · Score: 2

I'm still trying to figure out why everyone argues that we should spend the money elsewhere instead of simply using it as a reduction to our deficit-plagued budget.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money by TheCarp · 2013-09-06 07:25 · Score: 1

Well I said good bit, not all of it...they definitely don't need all of it.
That said, the educational system is doing a piss poor job of getting people ready to enter the workforce of 15 years ago, say nothing about the one today or going forward into the future.... so if they were to spend gobs of money on fixing that, I would at least have trouble saying it didn't go to something worthwhile...
Something other than supporting the share price of military contractors.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 07:26 · Score: 0

True, we should just nuke a few of the annoying countries and get the whole world back to being scared shitless of us.
Honestly one 30Kiloton bomb on whatever city we think that scumbag running Syria is and the whole thing is over. AS soon as it drops, we need to make a world brodcast where the president says only one sentence...
"That is what happens when you fuck with us."
then let the little pissants think about what just happened. Mister Jihad goes off his rocker, nuke the country he is from. Yes nuke an entire city over the actions of one nutjob, and the rest of the world might start taking care of the nutjobs in their own backyards.
Hey Muslims, you are peace loving... round up your nutjobs and you will not have any more problems. Because it's time for the USA to say "fuck it" to the rest of the world.
Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money by intermodal · 2013-09-06 07:41 · Score: 1

Well I agree they're doing a piss-poor job of it, but it seems that the more federal involvement we see, the worse both the education and the bang-for-the-buck get. Ronald Reagan once said, "If you serve a child a rotten hamburger in America, federal, state, and local agencies will investigate you, summon you, close you down, whatever. But if you provide children with a rotten education, nothing happens, except that youâ(TM)re liable to be given more money to do it with."

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money by hurwak-feg · 2013-09-06 18:20 · Score: 1

I don't see why this is trolling. I will admit that they went off on a tangent about the US getting involved in everything, this is a valid, relevant opinion. I will admit a super suit/exoskeleton thing sounds pretty cool. Just because it is cool and you disagree and think this is a worthwhile endeavor doesn't make TheCarp a troll.
Is the moderation process around here something like this:
Let p represent I agree with the poster's opinion.
Let q represent an up vote.
Let r represent a down vote.
p-->q
not(p)-->r

"warfighter"? by tirerim · 2013-09-06 05:57 · Score: 1

Is there something wrong with the word "soldier"?

Re:"warfighter"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes. Soldier is the term typically used for someone in the Army. As opposed to Airmen, Sailors, and Marines. Warfighter is the more general term for anyone int he military.
Re:"warfighter"? by sneakyimp · 2013-09-06 06:06 · Score: 1

Agreed. "warfighter" is a stupid fucking word (er, portmanteau).
Re: "warfighter"? by OECD · 2013-09-06 06:10 · Score: 2

Not Grar! enough. Same reason all the Pentagon flunkies are riding the Metro in camo.

--
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Re:"warfighter"? by SirGarlon · 2013-09-06 06:12 · Score: 2

The buzzword is meant to be inclusive. Technically, Army personnel are soldiers, Air Force personnel are airmen, Marine Corps personnel are marines, and Navy personnel are sailors. It's easier to say "warfighter" than to say "soldier, sailor, airman, and/or marine" every other sentence -- or, apparently, to risk offending anyone by leaving one or more of the service branches out. (I would think the military is the last place where one should have to worry about whiners, but whatever.)
I read an op-ed by a retired soldier who lamented the rise of the new buzzwords "warrior" and "warfighter." To be a solider implies a certain code of honor. That's why, he said, the term had become unfashionable-- a scathing commentary on military culture.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:"warfighter"? by Dzimas · 2013-09-06 06:12 · Score: 2

The military is marketed to 18-year-olds, and "soldier" is a passive term that simply doesn't convey the thrill and excitement of getting shot at.
Re:"warfighter"? by PhxBlue · 2013-09-06 06:13 · Score: 2

"Warfighter" is jargon. "Service members" is the general term for anyone in the military.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:"warfighter"? by perpenso · 2013-09-06 06:40 · Score: 1

"Warfighter" is jargon. "Service members" is the general term for anyone in the military.
"Warfighter" seems to be trying to distinguish between those service members who are in combat roles and those who are in non-combat roles.

As far as old terminology goes I think "troops" would be a better fit, something that can apply to soldiers, Marines, sailors in a shore party, etc.
Re:"warfighter"? by Chris+Mattern · 2013-09-06 06:53 · Score: 1

Is there something wrong with the word "soldier"?
Marines tend to object violently to being called "soldiers". Soldiers are in the Army.
Re: "warfighter"? by MarkvW · 2013-09-06 07:37 · Score: 1

Nah, don't be stupid. The deskbound "warfighters" are riding the Metro in camo because it's easier to maintain than dressier uniforms.
The easiest way is ALWAYS the way the soldier will try to take. To beat your opponent you have to be a little harder and a little more willing to put up with nasty shit.
Re:"warfighter"? by oodaloop · 2013-09-06 07:39 · Score: 2

And not just anyone in the military will be wearing this suit. Warfighter is used for someone who does the killing. Someone who works in admin, intel, logistics, or any other job behind a desk is a service member but not a warfighter. Warfighter is not meaningless jargon; it's the right word in this context and what we use (Defense contractor and former Marine, here).

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:"warfighter"? by oodaloop · 2013-09-06 07:40 · Score: 2

And yet it's what we use in the military to distinguish between combat roles and non-combat roles.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:"warfighter"? by cookYourDog · 2013-09-06 07:41 · Score: 2

actually, the term is used to distinguish combat troops from their paper pushing comrades. For every single infantryman, there are 11 support soldiers - from cooks to supply to drivers. I'll leave you to judge how efficient that may seem.
Re:"warfighter"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 07:49 · Score: 0

And yet it's what we use in the military to distinguish between combat roles and non-combat roles.
"Combatant" and "Non-combatant" too precise I gather?
"Warfighter" reeks like marketing jargon.
Re:"warfighter"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 07:52 · Score: 0

"Service Member" is jargon.
Lower class kid with no aspirations or talent who needs to suckle at the big green welfare machine's tit into maturity is more like it.
Re:"warfighter"? by sneakyimp · 2013-09-06 07:55 · Score: 1

OK I'll buy that and I apologize for my impulsive post. I guess I was just put off by the cumersome, germanic quality of the word. I'm also wondering which roles, exactly, are 'non combat' roles. Sir Haig had the cooks, grooms, drivers, and batmen in combat roles at the First Battle of Ypres. Also still feeling that the use of this word in this context is both jargonistic and unnecessary.
Re: "warfighter"? by mjwalshe · 2013-09-06 07:55 · Score: 1, Funny

And the Chicks dig it
Re:"warfighter"? by oodaloop · 2013-09-06 08:07 · Score: 1

It's hard to make a concrete determination between which ones are combat and which ones aren't. My own MOS (military occupational specialty) is mostly deskwork (Marine intelligence analyst), but those assigned to battalions go out on patrols with the infantry. The equivalent in the Air Force might not pick up a rifle in his entire career except to qualify on the range. The recent change for women to be allowed in combat roles reflects the reality that many women were in "non-combat roles" assigned as augmentees to battalions and saw plenty of combat, but were ineligible for combat ribbons because they were just augmentees. The term warfighter is used to encompass anyone who is in a combat role because it's easier than trying to list all the various MOSs across the services.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re: "warfighter"? by idontgno · 2013-09-06 08:53 · Score: 1

Nah, don't be stupid. The deskbound "warfighters" are riding the Metro in camo because it's easier to maintain than dressier uniforms.
True story.
In my case, I wore the camo NOT MERELY because it was more comfortable and easier to maintain... but as a sysadmin, crawling around in the subfloor pulling cable would have been pretty much impossible in my Air Force desk-driver blues. (Well, not impossible... but having to rush home to change into a fresh uniform would have been just a waste of time).
Essentially, what's commonly known of as battledress now was once generally known of as fatigues... working clothes.
I can't speak for those whose whole day is guaranteed to be behind a desk. Probably the comfort/maintainability thing.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:"warfighter"? by PhxBlue · 2013-09-06 08:54 · Score: 1

Lower class kid with no aspirations or talent who needs to suckle at the big green welfare machine's tit into maturity is more like it.
You must've been Army, because that doesn't describe any junior enlisted airman I ever met.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:"warfighter"? by PhxBlue · 2013-09-06 09:08 · Score: 1

Someone who works in admin, intel, logistics, or any other job behind a desk is a service member but not a warfighter. Warfighter is not meaningless jargon; it's the right word in this context and what we use (Defense contractor and former Marine, here).
Funny you mention logistics. Lori Piestewa worked logistics. Roslyn Schulte was an intel specialist.
Their jobs didn't involve desks. Their jobs placed them in harm's way.
I'm curious how long you've been out, because these days, anyone who (a) wears a uniform and (b) goes downrange is a warfighter by definition. And these days, anyone who wears a uniform ends up going downrange; it's just a question of when.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:"warfighter"? by PhxBlue · 2013-09-06 09:24 · Score: 1

"Warfighter" seems to be trying to distinguish between those service members who are in combat roles and those who are in non-combat roles.
Any service member who's not a medic or a chaplain is a combatant, according to the Law of Armed Conflict. Besides, neither mortars nor rocket propelled grenades nor roadside bombs distinguish between the folks in infantry and the folks in logistics.
So "warfighter" is redundant. Moreover, it's not fully descriptive of everything today's service members are asked to do, because they also help respond to humanitarian crises.
It's jargon, and I'm not convinced there's any point in using it.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re: "warfighter"? by Acapulco · 2013-09-06 09:34 · Score: 1

What is this maintainability thing in clothing? I ask this in all seriousness. Is it only about cleaning it or is there something else to it? Like, you can wear the fatigues more days without washing and still being presentable, as opposed to, say, Navy white uniforms which I would guess the tiniest bit of dust would make them look "dirty"?
Or do you refer to being more durable in that you could crawl around in the subfloor and the fatigues won't get torn so easily?

--
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
Re:"warfighter"? by triffid_98 · 2013-09-06 09:44 · Score: 1

Are there really? I'm pretty sure most of those support personnel aren't even US troops, they're private contractors.

Once upon a time they were soldiers, but with an all volunteer army and our administrations ah...fascination with continuous warfare that has changed. Nowadays many of those sorts of things are done by Blackwater (or whatever they're calling themselves now) , Haliburton, etc.
Re: "warfighter"? by idontgno · 2013-09-06 09:51 · Score: 1

Both, really. Office-type uniform combinations show soil and wrinkles quite a lot. To stay crisp enough to project correct military bearing (and avoid a word from the First Sergeant), you have to avoid getting dusty or being too active, and wear fresh every day. Fatigues/battledress mask it a lot of the same kinds of signs of "doing real work", so you can stretch it (as long as you don't get filthy or stinky), and you can do slightly grungy stuff and just dust the clothing off.
Also, expectations are a bit relaxed with battledress. Razor-sharp creases are doable, but you can't starch the fabric to attain persistent creases (because starch damages the fabric's engineered finish), so any ironing job you do is doomed to vanish within a few hours of even mild activity. So you look a tiny bit slouchier in camo uniform, but it's expected.
Finally, there is no necktie in camo uniform. Many of the office-style uniform combos mandate a necktie, or at least have one available (which often becomes "highly suggested" by superiors with broomsticks up their asses). And my job, as an enlisted technical leader, involved my brain...and I didn't need anyone commanding me to constrict cerebral blood flow.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:"warfighter"? by cusco · 2013-09-06 10:07 · Score: 1

Cooks and drivers are now contracted out to KBR. In the '70s a lot of my classmates went into the military and came out with training in logistics, auto repair, electronics, heavy machinery operation, etc. because the military used all its own people to do all the work of supporting the front line troops. Hell, even Beetle Bailey did enough KP to know how to run a kitchen. Today that's all contracted out, at some bases even the guards are mercenaries. When guys leave the military today most of them have learned nothing at all besides how to carry a pack and shoot at people.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:"warfighter"? by cookYourDog · 2013-09-06 10:33 · Score: 1

Not true. Soldiers were cooking my meals and driving me around eastern Afghanistan last year. Contractors work in the rear.
Re:"warfighter"? by cookYourDog · 2013-09-06 10:38 · Score: 1

Yes. But the vast majority are soldiers - just in a more bureaucratic sense. Believe it or not, forward operating bases have banking, legal, religious services, supply, air control, and policing all done by soldiers. Worse, it would not be rare to spot a DSARC (deployed sexual assault response coordinator) or a TNOSC-Forward (basically a wan engineer) running around in a combat zone. The military is a government organization, after all. Contractors aren't as pervasive as some insist.
Re:"warfighter"? by perpenso · 2013-09-06 14:53 · Score: 1

"Warfighter" seems to be trying to distinguish between those service members who are in combat roles and those who are in non-combat roles.
Any service member who's not a medic or a chaplain is a combatant, according to the Law of Armed Conflict. Besides, neither mortars nor rocket propelled grenades nor roadside bombs distinguish between the folks in infantry and the folks in logistics.
I understand that quite well. I grew up around a WW2 paratrooper. He told me how at Bastogne they were reinforced by the truck drivers who were making one-way trips to get supplies in before Bastogne was completely cut off. He said these truck drivers had not fired a rifle since basic training and had not received any real infantry training either. Despite their non-combat MOS and deficient for the circumstances training, they were still soldiers who fought bravely and endured great hardship.

So "warfighter" is redundant.
"Warfighter" may be jargon but its use is absolutely intended to distinguish between those in a combat MOS and those who are not. It is not interchangeable with "service member" given its common usage.
"Warfighter
These are the people in any branch of the military whose primary job is killing people and breaking things."
http://www.jargondatabase.com/Category/Military/General-Military-Jargon/Warfighter
Re:"warfighter"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 15:25 · Score: 0

And yet it's what we use in the military to distinguish between combat roles and non-combat roles.
"Combatant" and "Non-combatant" too precise I gather?
"Warfighter" reeks like marketing jargon.
A non-combat role does not make you a non-combatant. You may be moving boxes around in a military supply center but you are still a combatant, in other words a legal target. A typical non-combatant would be a civilian, those who are not legitimate targets. You may be a cook, a clerk, a warehouseman but you are in uniform and therefore a legit target and a combatant.
Re:"warfighter"? by greenbird · 2013-09-06 15:33 · Score: 1

So "warfighter" is redundant.
Yeah, cause no one needs gear like this more than the cook or the Chaplin. They both need strong protection from projectile vomiting.

It's jargon, and I'm not convinced there's any point in using it.
I'll tell you what. We'll just send you out with the grunts for a while. I'm betting you'll see the point and pretty damn quick.

--
Who is John Galt?
Re:"warfighter"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 16:14 · Score: 0

(Defense contractor and former Marine, here).
What you really are is a parasite who makes his living off
taxes while doing the bidding of your masters in the
military-industrial complex.
What the US needs is fewer twits like you and more decent people
who want to make PEACE instead of war.
Re:"warfighter"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 22:23 · Score: 0

Warfighter. Warcriminal. C'est toute la meme.
Re: "warfighter"? by Acapulco · 2013-09-10 09:19 · Score: 1

Thank you good sir. I have learned something new today that I probably wouldn't have otherwise, as I can't bring my head to ever join the military. I was born with a need to ask "why" which I don't think flies very well with the military :)

--
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey

Air Conditioning... by MozeeToby · 2013-09-06 05:57 · Score: 1

Why air conditioning? Wouldn't it be simpler, lighter, and more efficient to cool with conduction than convection? I'm thinking pads that stick to the skin running water to a heat pump or even Peltier devices to make the whole thing solid state.

Re:Air Conditioning... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:09 · Score: 0

Peltier devices are horribly power inefficient. Bad enough that they would reduce battery life, and increase the suit's heat signature considerably more than a actual AC.
With the right setup and say putting someplace to dump the heat internal (say an ICE block) you could minimize the heat signature of the suit for a short time to limit high-tech detection.
Re:Air Conditioning... by bluefoxlucid · 2013-09-06 06:12 · Score: 1

What you want is Cool Chips at 55% carnot efficiency.
I've already figured out how to use these to make 1000+mpg cars. They don't even have viable production yield yet. This is a keystone technology that I can personally put to a hell of a lot of use making a ton of shit that doesn't exist now (some could but would be expensive and impractical; some is physically impossible to substitute a compressor for).

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Air Conditioning... by MrDoh! · 2013-09-06 06:16 · Score: 1

Sounds good. For the places they're probably wanting to use it, shame you can't make it nice and reflective to bounce a lot of solar energy away, but having troops wandering around lit up like disco balls probably isn't the thing they're after! Having a 'stillsuit' type thing under any armour should help with the cooling/attachment of external armour too, perhaps a combo system? the pads to a heat pump for general use, and an 'active' system in the external armour to crank up when needed, then flip off to save power/go dark when needed. When traveling, could plug in to use the extra power for cooling so wouldn't need to remove the armour when seated Don't they suffer a lot of injuries in road side bombs? having a decent amount of cooled body armour might help here too and you'd be able to bulk up a bit knowing they're not needing to schlep too far, at least for the drivers. I guess the main issue is if/when you do run out of power. Would they be ok or need to strip off the extra as without power, it's more weight/heat to worry about?

--
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Re:Air Conditioning... by SirGarlon · 2013-09-06 06:18 · Score: 1

I didn't read the PDF, but probably what the DoD asked for was "cooling," and the poster or editor mistook "air conditioning" for an exact synonym. I am sure the DoD would be happy with any cooling mechanism that worked.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:Air Conditioning... by alexander_686 · 2013-09-06 06:28 · Score: 1

I am going to make the assumption that the army wants to protect their soldiers from concussive blast (from bombs, RPGs, etc.), chemical, and nuclear fallout. In order to protect from these threats you need a air tight seal which then bright up issues on how to cool the soldiers. Look back at Gulf War I and what soldiers had to endure under the threat of chemical attack.
I am also going to assume that the army does not mean “AC” when the article says “AC”. I would think any cooling system would work. I have seen some weird studies about how to cool soldiers down.
Re:Air Conditioning... by mjwalshe · 2013-09-06 07:57 · Score: 1

water is heavy you want to save your carrying capacity for important things like ammo,spare socks mars bars etc
Re:Air Conditioning... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 08:12 · Score: 0

>>> Why air conditioning?
Where do you live man? Don't you watch TV, it is all over the TV, 24/7! Obama said, McCain said, JK Flip-Flop said, even a hundred or so Rabbis said we ought to be Syria.
We are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, we are going to Syria, and then Iran and then all of the Middle East, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and all of North Africa and it is too hot for our "warfighters".
Re:Air Conditioning... by wonkey_monkey · 2013-09-06 08:34 · Score: 1

Why air conditioning?
Americans can't function without it. Or so TV has led me to believe.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Air Conditioning... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 09:03 · Score: 0

I think that it's intended to be used more like a tank, rather than a uniform. They want a person to be able to jump into the battle suit, boot it up, and start killing. Using conduction would probably require a lot of preparation before the operator could get going, whereas convection allows you to just hop in and go. It would need to be actively cooled because the heat generated to power the thing would build up too fast for passive cooling. Separating the operator's skin from the heat generators wouldn't be sufficient either, because the entire thing would heat up in the sun like a parked car.

Wanted: by ackthpt · 2013-09-06 05:58 · Score: 1

Sharkskin jackets with lasers - Contact DoD.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

They really can't distinguish fact from fiction... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:01 · Score: 0

Comment from the 'Starship Troopers' wiki entry: ... In 2012, an article on the US military buying ballistic face masks specifically referenced the "big steel gorilla[s]" of Starship Troopers...

Just watch. by some+old+guy · 2013-09-06 06:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

One the Army gets them, the nazis over at the DEA will want them too, and in no time at all Andy Taylor and Barney Fife will get a Homeland Security law enforcement grant so they can add this to their local sheriff's arsenal of M-16's, M-60's, and infantry fighting vehicles...so they can morph into Judge Dredd and fight the swarms of evil terrorists we see on every street corner.

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.

Re:Just watch. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 08:01 · Score: 0

Meh, it can't be *that* hard, really. I bet any whacko could throw one together in their basement, provided it's a well-provisioned and equipped basement..
the thing would have one HELL of a big damn thermal signature, though, and quiet operation might only work for certain definitions of quiet..
Re:Just watch. by cusco · 2013-09-06 10:29 · Score: 1

I'm not terribly worried about this yet. The power draw would be phenomenal, the batteries or fuel cell would weigh more than the suit. The only way I could think of to power this monstrosity would be a separate wheeled or tracked vehicle that hooks to the suit with an umbilical cord. It would make a lot more sense to put the grunt in a self propelled armored vehicle the size of a Smart car. That at least would have some possibility of functioning.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Just watch. by ohnocitizen · 2013-09-06 18:14 · Score: 1

Tony Stark was able to build it in a cave! With a BOX OF SCRAPS!!

And... by chill · 2013-09-06 06:09 · Score: 1

Also on the list, a pony. Preferrably one with a frickin' laser beam on its head.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

User death imminent. by TheSpoom · 2013-09-06 06:09 · Score: 1

Morphine administered.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

Re:User death imminent. by Aelanna · 2013-09-06 06:23 · Score: 1

Maximum Armor.
Re:User death imminent. by mjwalshe · 2013-09-06 07:59 · Score: 0

Thats why squaddies Do not like the idea of battlefield life signs monitors - as told me by a RSM.

Life imitating art by Mr.Intel · 2013-09-06 06:12 · Score: 1

Okay... so it's not particularly good art, but it is art nonetheless. If they invent e-balls as well, I totally want to see one of these in action!

--
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.

"warfighters" by Medievalist · 2013-09-06 06:12 · Score: 1

Because a soldier isn't technologically advantaged to disincentivise enemy combatant functionality utilizing post-9/11 paradigms.

Bugs, Mr. Rico. Zillions of 'em! by Chacharoo · 2013-09-06 06:13 · Score: 1

Come on you apes, you wanna live forever?

Advanced armor w/embedded tech. by fahrbot-bot · 2013-09-06 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

... a futuristic uniform for Special Operations warfighters that involves agile air-conditioned armor with embedded computers, sensors, communications radios and antennas, signal processors, wearable displays, and health-monitoring systems. ... officials are interested in advanced armor to protect warfighters from bullets, shrapnel, and other battlefield threats, while preserving their mobility.

Problem solved. Some mobility may be limited.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:Advanced armor w/embedded tech. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 11:10 · Score: 0

Why is this modded insightful?
Can an M1 Abrams do a HALO jump in to the ocean, swim to the USS Brainbridge, then fire three rifles at the exact same moment taking into account swell, wind speed, etc. in order save a US citizen from Somali pirates? No? Didn't think so. Mobility and precision have everything to do with the problem.
Re:Advanced armor w/embedded tech. by ohnocitizen · 2013-09-06 18:13 · Score: 1

Exactly this. Should be modded Funny. Or sad, depending on how your own day is going. Definitely not insightful.

Bear Proof Suit by djlemma · 2013-09-06 06:18 · Score: 1

I thought Troy Hurtubise was trying to shop around a suit of armor similar to what they're looking for. Seems like a crazy guy, but the documentary about the bear proof suit was cool.

Re:Bear Proof Suit by sabt-pestnu · 2013-09-06 07:10 · Score: 1

The only problem with Bear Proof Suit development is cleaning out the failed prototypes.
Re:Bear Proof Suit by Hentes · 2013-09-06 07:20 · Score: 1

Here's a video, if anybody's wondering.

Easy. by nospam007 · 2013-09-06 06:18 · Score: 2

anti-ballistic, computerized, walking.

Pick 2.

Re:Bugs, Mr. Rico. Zillions of 'em! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:19 · Score: 0

Always laughed at that line - because the obvious answer is "Um, yes.."

Must also... by HockeyPuck · 2013-09-06 06:20 · Score: 1

Float...

Not obscure the vision of the wearing when enemy fires "flour bombs" at wearer...

Also work in the dense jungle (we know how well our high-tech worked against the pajama wearing VC...

Re:Must also... by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-09-06 06:58 · Score: 1

I think we can be fairly confident that US troops will never fight another jungle war. Deserts and cities, that's what they're thinking of, and no matter how valuable Resource X in the jungle is, US troops aren't going to be committed to "securing" it. Those Viet Nam scars run deep.
Re:Must also... by mjwalshe · 2013-09-06 08:00 · Score: 0

Tet was fought in built up areas

They want Mospeada's Cyclones by the_B0fh · 2013-09-06 06:22 · Score: 1

Hell, *I* want Mospeada!! Those Cyclones are damned cool!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Climber_MOSPEADA

StarCraft Terran Marine suit by Dajhan · 2013-09-06 06:22 · Score: 1

sounds like they want something like the Terran Marine Suit in StarCraft

Re:StarCraft Terran Marine suit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 07:33 · Score: 0

You must construct additional supply overlords.

Prior 'WORKING' Art by schneidafunk · 2013-09-06 06:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, both were beat out by real devices! Powered Exoskeletons

In addition, (according to wikipedia) the first fictional reference was E. E. Smith's Lensman series in 1937, although devices were being built before then.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin

Re:Prior 'WORKING' Art by Ian+A.+Shill · 2013-09-06 07:47 · Score: 1

Yo Dawg, I heard you like Halo, so I got you a suit to play Halo while you play Halo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Ballistics_Suit_of_Armor

--
For hire.

manifest density by Thud457 · 2013-09-06 06:24 · Score: 1

so when are we dumping "defense department" and going back to "department of war" ? And does that mean we're going back to slaughtering the natives and taking their land?

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:manifest density by Chris+Mattern · 2013-09-06 06:59 · Score: 3, Informative

The War Department didn't become the Defense Department. It became the Department of the Army and was removed from the cabinet, as was the Department of the Navy (which didn't get a name change). The Defense Department was, by necessity, a new department because it was created to oversee the Army, Navy and the new formed Air Force, whereas the War Department had been responsible for only the Army since 1798 (nine years after its founding).
Re:manifest density by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 08:22 · Score: 0

The Offense Department is so much better anyway. Cooking up devious insults to world politicians, dictators and freedo..terrorists since 9/11. By the way, I'm sure that if the Al Qaeda had hit a target in the EU area it would made the attack exactly at 11/2 or 1/12.

Lets hope they freeze your sperm first... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:25 · Score: 0

Because something like that is guaranteed to cook your nuts.

Sounds like ... by PPH · 2013-09-06 06:34 · Score: 1

... Gundam. The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture have been covering up their involvement in this technology, so that might be a good place to start looking. Why not contact them?

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re: Bugs, Mr. Rico. Zillions of 'em! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:49 · Score: 0

It's a reference to ancient Sparta, where "May you live forever" was a curse.

There is a little history in that fiction ... by perpenso · 2013-09-06 06:51 · Score: 1

Comment from the 'Starship Troopers' wiki entry: ... In 2012, an article on the US military buying ballistic face masks specifically referenced the "big steel gorilla[s]" of Starship Troopers...

And Starship Troopers use of the term "big gorillas" was in reference to WW1 (1914-18) slang. IIRC anti-ballistic steel face masks were also tried out in WW1. There is a little history mixed in with that fiction.

Re:There is a little history in that fiction ... by mjwalshe · 2013-09-06 07:58 · Score: 1

yes the German helmet in ww1 originally had fixings for a face mask they tied it out with the storm troops late in the war

OH OH OH! by Nov8tr · 2013-09-06 06:53 · Score: 0

With a FRIKIN LASER BEAM on the head!!

--
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.

And, um, by rickb928 · 2013-09-06 06:56 · Score: 1

" agile air-conditioned armor with embedded computers, sensors, communications radios and antennas, signal processors, wearable displays, and health-monitoring systems."

And low observable - infrared, RF, you know.

Oh, wait. That is gonna be harder.

How long before the battlefield is cluttered with little RF bots crawling around pretending to be communicating with themselves and Central Command, attracting DIY drones and quadcopters spewing hostile fire? And of course lighting themselves up to be found and neutralized by other drones loitering for just such a chance, to strike anything afloat in the 100'-1000' range, doing less than say 50 knots that doesn't ping back IFF that is recognized?

The coming battlefield will be full of autonomous machines looking for opportunities to deal with obvious, plain threats, stuff in kill boxes and even in more fluid spaces. And countermeasures. At some point, visible spectrum or even infrared video-based drones may be blinded by a bright source, just left there to deny surveillance over a certain area as troops etc move through. By the time the drone(s) clear their vision, the troops are through. The visible/IR 'jammer' may even be smart enough to shut down, hide, and then catch up with its owners, to repeat the cycle. Other handy devices may just crawl along behind carrying supplies and being close enough to be helpful, far enough away to survive an attack or give away positioning.

What a mess. You will need sensors, mapping, etc, just to keep track of your friends.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Re:And, um, by Hartree · 2013-09-06 15:59 · Score: 1

I thought about something similar a good bit in the 1980s when the Army was fielding Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE, cell phone for the field). It seemed a bit too centralized and fragile for my liking. Take out a few antenna sites and lose much of the comm for a whole division.
The idea was to make traffic analysis useless by drowning any listener in phony communications between nodes in a mesh network. You'd just scatter little relay nodes all over the battlefield.
The encrypted messages would look the same whether they were real or phoney. This was before GPS was online and you could also use signal timing to locate your troops the same way PLRS was proposed to. You'd have units trade the radios/nodes around so you couldn't identify them by key up signatures.
Figured that robots were a bit much at that time (and frankly, we didn't have the small enough compute power for a mesh system like this), but considered putting some of them on either wild or trained animals so they'd move and you couldn't easily see which were phoney because they were stationary for too long. Now robots would be do-able.
I tend to agree this may be the way things will proceed.
Now the doors are open to armed autonomous robots to do a lot of jobs.
Drones can be pretty sophisticated in behavior now and you don't have to write letters to their mom telling them why they won't be coming home.
Re:And, um, by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-09-07 03:44 · Score: 1

None of which will happen for the forseeable future, for one reason only: there is no battery that could usefully power such a scenario.
Aren't we lucky that battery tech still sucks...
Re: And, um, by rickb928 · 2013-09-07 07:08 · Score: 1

Drone tech is already here.
Ground carriers require batteries, but they have the horsepower to haul them.
Troops ditto.
What's needed is a generator that is battle ready, quiet enough, and can be hauled by the carrier. Not impossible. 2 years.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re: And, um, by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-09-07 08:18 · Score: 1

Drones with any useful time-on-station use hydrocarbon combustion engines, not batteries. If Tesla continues to succeed, perhaps one day there will be ground carriers that are battery powered. At the moment, none of them are.
Troops don't have the horsepower to haul enough batteries to be useful. Ask any modern long range radio man just how miserable his job is. He's the exception that proves the rule.
I stand by my original statement. There are no and will be no powered armor troops, for lack of electrical energy storage.
Re: And, um, by rickb928 · 2013-09-07 10:11 · Score: 1

Ok, do drones don't use batteries. Ground haulers are already in test.
Yes, if troops carry fewer supplies with a mule handy, they carry other things.
This is all possible - just need the money.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Gargoyles by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 06:56 · Score: 0

ala "Snow Crash"

So I wonder about something by kilodelta · 2013-09-06 07:04 · Score: 1

Is it going to be shielded from RF stuff. I'm thinking HERF here but any directed energy weapon will do.

Re:So I wonder about something by cusco · 2013-09-06 10:42 · Score: 1

Screw 'directed energy', the Soviets came up with an EMP weapon that could be built in any decently-equipped machine shop. No nukes needed. The plans are out in the wild now, I think the range was something like a half a kilometer radius. Fry the electronics in this thing and its utility is reduced to an immobile pile of armor to hide behind (if the soldier can even get out of it).

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Heinlein, Haldeman, Steakley, Scalzi ... by perpenso · 2013-09-06 07:05 · Score: 1

Thanks for the correction. Time to read the book again, it's obviously been too long.

I used to recommend reading Starship Troopers (Heinlein), Forever War (Haldeman), and Armor (Steakley) back to back. But I've decided to add Old Man's War (Scalzi) to that suggestion list. The later doesn't have the armored suits of the others but I think fits in well in its own way.

Re:Heinlein, Haldeman, Steakley, Scalzi ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 07:48 · Score: 0

I used to recommend reading Starship Troopers (Heinlein), Forever War (Haldeman), and Armor (Steakley) back to back. But I've decided to add Old Man's War (Scalzi) to that suggestion list. The later doesn't have the armored suits of the others but I think fits in well in its own way.
Have to say I'm baffled by the people who like Old Man's War, which doesn't even have the cynicism of Heinlein, much less Haldeman.
The "old man" in Old Man's War is basically buying a pig in a poke. "If I sign up to fight this war, speculation and unconfirmed rumors say that fabulous benefits are given to veterans when they get out. So, even though not a single person who has gone to fight the war has ever come back to confirm those speculations, I believe them! It's not at all suspicious that they don't promise anything at all or that nobody who's signed up has ever come back-- why, that's completely reasonable, because they clearly don't want people to sign up just to get the benefits. But I want those benefits, so I'll sign up!
Re:Heinlein, Haldeman, Steakley, Scalzi ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 15:12 · Score: 0

I used to recommend reading Starship Troopers (Heinlein), Forever War (Haldeman), and Armor (Steakley) back to back. But I've decided to add Old Man's War (Scalzi) to that suggestion list. The later doesn't have the armored suits of the others but I think fits in well in its own way.
Have to say I'm baffled by the people who like Old Man's War, which doesn't even have the cynicism of Heinlein, much less Haldeman.
The "old man" in Old Man's War is basically buying a pig in a poke. "If I sign up to fight this war, speculation and unconfirmed rumors say that fabulous benefits are given to veterans when they get out. So, even though not a single person who has gone to fight the war has ever come back to confirm those speculations, I believe them! It's not at all suspicious that they don't promise anything at all or that nobody who's signed up has ever come back-- why, that's completely reasonable, because they clearly don't want people to sign up just to get the benefits. But I want those benefits, so I'll sign up!
Its not that simple and the book does address this very issue. These people are at a minimum of 75 years old and medical science has not progressed that far so they are still realistically facing death or a severe decline in the quality of life in their near future. Given the extraordinary potential payoff the risk of giving up a small number of remaining healthy years is not implausible. Plus the military's claim of improving their health is also plausible given that they want 75+ year olds. Other than make soylent green what could they do for the military if there was no restorative process at all?

One thing I liked about the book was the main protagonist's sense of humor. Plus the fact that it centered on something other than yet another battle suit was an interesting concept to explore for me.
Re:Heinlein, Haldeman, Steakley, Scalzi ... by Quila · 2013-09-09 00:41 · Score: 1

Don't forget Bill The Galactic Hero.
Re:Heinlein, Haldeman, Steakley, Scalzi ... by perpenso · 2013-09-09 05:08 · Score: 1

Don't forget Bill The Galactic Hero.
Shamefully I must confess that I have not read that one yet. I understand it is also a classic.
Re:Heinlein, Haldeman, Steakley, Scalzi ... by Quila · 2013-09-09 05:53 · Score: 1

It lets you laugh after having read those previous serious books.

Beskar'gam by anakin876 · 2013-09-06 07:12 · Score: 1

Where are they going to get the beskar to make these?

Sounds like Starship Troopers by jfdavis668 · 2013-09-06 07:27 · Score: 1

The book, not the movies.

Stupid Americans by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 07:28 · Score: 0

Instead of more unmanned vehicles they want robocops. Well the rest of the world can be thankful but just how stupid is the American military to go this route? They will probably have them made in China and cut corners on costs too I am betting! LOL!!

Re:Stupid Americans by oodaloop · 2013-09-06 07:36 · Score: 1

When an unmanned drone can walk into a building, kill hostiles, and retrieve friendlies then let me know. Until then, you'll need a human.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:Stupid Americans by geekoid · 2013-09-06 07:48 · Score: 1

Arm Big Dog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ&noredirect=1
Drones will(are) changing the need for the particular tactic in many cases. For others, it will not be unheard of in a decade.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Power Source by cookYourDog · 2013-09-06 07:48 · Score: 1

This will happen as soon as a reliable power source with adequate capacity is developed. Bear in mind, this is the same thing needed for humans to move away from fossil fuels en masse. Interesting that the vested interests keeping fossil fuels relevant may be outdone by the military-industrial complex.

Syria: not our probl [Re:Wanted: Stop wasting...] by Geoffrey.landis · 2013-09-06 07:51 · Score: 2

...Honestly one 30Kiloton bomb on whatever city we think that scumbag running Syria is and the whole thing is over. AS soon as it drops, we need to make a world brodcast where the president says only one sentence...

"That is what happens when you fuck with us."

Uh, they're not fucking with us. We have no dog in this fight. They're basically killing each other.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Outside the box by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 07:57 · Score: 0

How about we go REALLY far outside the box on this one.

I'm envisioning someone wearing jeans and a tshirt, sitting outside on a breezy day reading a Kindle. I know, crazy right?

Maybe the world doesn't need more military technology, maybe it needs people to stop signing up to go halfway around the
world to murder some innocent brown person in their own country. The answer to keeping soldiers safe is to keep them
from becoming soldiers at all.

No, they want the ED209 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 07:59 · Score: 0

The new, revised ED209 Mk II has remote management capabilities, as well as the existing autonomous pacification and supervision features. OmniConsumerProducts is pleased to bring you the latest in Enforcement Droid technology: now with Intel Inside and Windows 8.

Why bother stuffing someone inside? by ImprovOmega · 2013-09-06 08:19 · Score: 1

If you're going through all the trouble of building an articulating exoskeleton with most of the range of human motion, then why stuff and extra 80kg of meat-sac in it? Just replace the human with some remote controls and you can throw out all that inconvenient padding, air conditioning, and restrictions on G-forces. Then you basically have a land drone.

Re:Why bother stuffing someone inside? by cookYourDog · 2013-09-06 08:33 · Score: 1

Good point, although until that drone can reliably act autonomously under most circumstances, it will require someone inside. The drone needs to be capable of fight or flight in a wide spectrum of possible situations. Also, due to the limitations of the RF spectrum, the drone would only be able to serve as a surrogate where communication coverage is available. Therefore, you need a decision-making individual inside capable of carrying out the mission and protecting the drone itself.

You should also include.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 08:28 · Score: 0

With all those electronics, you add Anti EMP features using Faraday cage protection.

An Odd Question (More of an Aside, Really) by Starchilde · 2013-09-06 08:35 · Score: 1

Why do they use the term "warfighter" and not the term "soldier?"

Re:An Odd Question (More of an Aside, Really) by cusco · 2013-09-06 10:44 · Score: 1

Marketing.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:An Odd Question (More of an Aside, Really) by perry64 · 2013-09-06 17:44 · Score: 1

Soldiers are only in the Army. As this will likely be used by members of all services, warfighter is more correct.
Never refer to a Marine as a "soldier" - it doesn't go over well.

In need of a chill out: by Hartree · 2013-09-06 08:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

"one 30Kiloton bomb"

So, you're saying to drop a nuke on the capital so they won't use chemical weapons?

Uh...

Listen to the doctor. Take the Xanax he prescribed, look at the pretty flowers and listen to soothing music.

Re:In need of a chill out: by Aonghus142000 · 2013-09-06 12:17 · Score: 1

When I was in the Marines (back in the Dark Ages), it was the stated policy of the U.S. Government that we made no distinction between types of WMDs (we called them NBC weapons back then,) and an attack of that nature would be responded to in kind.
To the best of my knowledge that policy has never been rescinded.
This was mostly to counter the Soviet doctrine of beginning any land assault with a massive chemical attack without violating the Other US policy of no first use of Nuclear weapons.
All that being said, the original poster seems to be conveniently ignoring the huge policy implications implicit in the use of these types of weapons in any situation that is of a lesser degree of seriousness than a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. After all, we didn’t use nukes in Korea, even after the Chinese intervened on the side of the Nokes, even though China didn’t have the bomb at that point.

Get rid of the human... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 11:38 · Score: 0

... and we get rid of the life support/comfort requirements.
Humanoid drones?

Obligatory Fallout specs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 15:10 · Score: 0

T-51b power armor

Cold war memories: by Hartree · 2013-09-06 15:18 · Score: 1

Though the policy may not have been officially changed, it was strongly signaled during the 90s (Clinton admin) that chemical alone was not a reason for a nuclear strike. Also, that would have been an attack on US, South Korean or NATO troops all comfortably under the US nuclear umbrella. So far, this is Syrian citizens and irregulars from various places.

Yeah, it's still NBC to me as well (was a battalion NBC alternate while I was in Korea in the mid 80s. Main job was RATT operator. When were you in?)

Either Germany or Korea would have gone nuclear almost immediately regardless. A number of the ADM charges were already in place. I can't believe they would have let a massive advance get past those without blowing them.

As you say, using a nuke in anger would be a huge thing. Suddenly, what had been thinkable only in case of a threat to regime survival would be much close to being just another tool of war.

Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 15:22 · Score: 0

Less War and more NASA and Space research.... I'm so fucking tired of hearing anything war related. Why can't we get a news report saying "NASA Develops faster then light travel - Trip to Alpha Centauri takes 30min"

FFS so fucking tired.

The Predator had a suit like this ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 16:05 · Score: 0

And Arnold kicked his ass so badly the Predator had to
take the suicide option ...

Kidding aside -
All the tech in the world won't make you safe against a determined
opponent who just doesn't give a damn about his own safety and
wants nothing more than to kill your sorry imperialistic ass because you
invaded HIS country without provocation or cause.

It has computers... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-06 16:18 · Score: 0

... but will it run Crysis?

Why? by hurwak-feg · 2013-09-06 18:05 · Score: 1

This bothers me a bit. I wonder how much different our world would be if half of the resources spent on militaries and warfare were spent on other things like health care, research grants, scholarships, or transportation. I wouldn't be surprised if there are companies that make (or hope to) this stuff using the common sales tactic of making the mark feel like they need it and can't do without it. Why does the world benefit from better weapons when the underlying problems that often lead to the use of them aren't resolved? At a certain point, it is no longer about defense. A military needs to be just powerful enough to make an invasion or attack too costly to be worth while and deal with nuisances such as pirates (the boat robbers, not file sharers).

Ask the Japanese by ArcadeMan · 2013-09-06 21:19 · Score: 1

Ask the Japanese, duh.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

suport by mjwalshe · 2013-09-07 04:14 · Score: 1

And if your in deep shit I am sure that average squaddie will be praising those paper pushing artillerymen who drop a nicely targeted "immediate suppression" on the bad guys - just dont cock up changing the batteries on your gps units though.

-air cooled by davidmatchey · 2013-09-07 04:35 · Score: 1

the coolant or body tempering media should not be air - in a NBC enviro with shrap/project protection, it may be something like advanced (vitamin rich) cloth.

Slashdot Mirror

Wanted: Special-Ops Battle Suit With Cooling, Computers, Radios, and Sensors

176 comments