US Army May Be About To 'Waste' Up To $22 Billion On Microsoft HoloLens (theregister.com) 45
The US Army could end up wasting much as $22 billion in taxpayer cash if soldiers aren't actually interested in using, or able to use as intended, the Microsoft HoloLens headsets it said it would purchase, a government watchdog has warned. The Register reports: In 2018, the American military splashed $480 million on 100,000 prototype augmented-reality goggles from Redmond to see how they could help soldiers train for and fight in combat. The Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) project was expanded when the Army decided it wanted the Windows giant to make custom, battle-ready AR headsets in a ten-year deal worth up to $22 billion. The project was delayed and is reportedly scheduled to roll out some time this year. But the US Dept of Defense's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) cast some doubt on whether it was worth it at all.
"Procuring IVAS without attaining user acceptance could result in wasting up to $21.88 billion in taxpayer funds to field a system that soldiers may not want to use or use as intended," the Pentagon oversight body wrote in an audit [PDF] report this month. In other words, the Army hasn't yet fully determined if or how service members will find these HoloLens headsets valuable in the field. Although the heavily redacted report did not reveal soldiers' responses to the prototype testing, it said feedback from surveys showed "both positive and negative user acceptance." The Army plans to purchase 121,500 IVAS units from Microsoft while admitting that "if soldiers do not love IVAS and do not find it greatly enhances accomplishing the mission, then soldiers will not use it," the report disclosed.
"Procuring IVAS without attaining user acceptance could result in wasting up to $21.88 billion in taxpayer funds to field a system that soldiers may not want to use or use as intended," the Pentagon oversight body wrote in an audit [PDF] report this month. In other words, the Army hasn't yet fully determined if or how service members will find these HoloLens headsets valuable in the field. Although the heavily redacted report did not reveal soldiers' responses to the prototype testing, it said feedback from surveys showed "both positive and negative user acceptance." The Army plans to purchase 121,500 IVAS units from Microsoft while admitting that "if soldiers do not love IVAS and do not find it greatly enhances accomplishing the mission, then soldiers will not use it," the report disclosed.
Who cares? (Score:1)
With the literal trillions of dollars the U.S. wastes on things that only line the pockets of political supporters, $22 billion to Microsoft for a product that might have actually worked ends up seeming quite reasonable.
Since they just print whatever they want to spend anyway (we are long past the point where taxes cover government expenditures, nor could they) can you even say $22 billion was wasted?
Re: (Score:2)
How would these headsets have helped us win the war in Afghanistan?
It is often said that generals prepare to fight the last war. Our generals are still stuck on WWII.
Re: (Score:3)
How would these headsets have helped us win the war in Afghanistan?
Just off the top of my head: heads up display and facial recognition at checkpoints. Remember what the mission objective was:
To prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven or sanctuary for al- Qaeda, and to make sure al-Qaeda is not there in Afghanistan, and, therefore, a destabilizing force in the region.
The only way to meet the objective is to stay there forever, looking for al-Qaeda members.
A matter of WHEN not IF (Score:3)
This isn't a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN.
Sooner or later military troops will have augmented reality glasses as an essential uniform piece. They'll do everything from highlight threats, identify targets, assist with aiming, and more. There are already applications to help people effectively see through standard walls with radio waves, augment vision with thermal cameras, show the direction and trace lines for gunfire, automatically switch to night vision, and more.
If it isn't this specific round,
Re: A matter of WHEN not IF (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While a larger user base will help debug faster
A large user base is only useful if there is feedback.
The military doesn't do feedback well. Communication goes from the top down.
Disclaimer: Yes, I served in the military.
Re: (Score:2)
Or not even front line troops. How about all the people who maintain all the stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Us? You're Chinese.
I am a native-born American citizen. I lived in China and other parts of Asia for many years, both for business and while serving in the US military. I understand Mandarin, Japanese, and Tagalog (Filipino). I married a Chinese woman but she is now also an American citizen. My family currently resides in San Jose, California.
I care! (Score:3)
$22B is half of a Twitter!
It's like every American spent $65 on fireworks. Without the economic benefits of manufacturing and distributing fireworks.
Sensationalism (Score:4, Informative)
Before everyone gets hung up on "$22 billion", The Register took every option, every year, including foreign sales, to maximize the value to make a shocking headline. I know, that's what news organizations do, but still...
In a rebuttal to the OIG's audit, Douglas Bush, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, said the $21.88 billion was double what the military would likely at most spend, and was – in a way – a worst-case scenario figure.
"This is a contract ceiling that includes all possible hardware, components, and services over a ten-year period at the worst possible pricing structure. Less than half of this total is possible for the US Army. This total includes all possible sales to all sister services, foreign military sales, and all maximized service contracts," he wrote. [Emphasis added]
Every military service would have to max out the contract offering every single year during the 10 year contract, plus all foreign military sale options, etc. I don't think foreign military sales would be paid for by the US taxpayer, nor their service contracts.
However, I will admit their tactic worked. It got me to click on the link to read the article. Does this fall into the category of clickbait or just sensationalism?
hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was thinking this too.
I was in the Army. I hated wearing a flak jacket, or a kevlar, or web gear. MOPP sucked, and so did just about everything else.
If they threw on some video screen that had some semblance of excitement, I would not have minded at all.
I lived in a hole for months, and literally had parts of my skin rot. I don't think a HoloLens would be hard 'no'.
You KNOW they will figure out how to put porn on it. In fact, the only thing that would keep me from using it, was if it already smelled l
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your service.
Also, thanks for wiping down the equipment after use
First hand experience (Score:4, Interesting)
A colleague has one and is developing software for it, he brought it in the other day for people to try.
It doesn't have any of the problems that prior VR systems have, that I could determine, and is actually comfortable and seems useful.
The system presented a skeleton (literally) that you could walk around and see all sides of. The image didn't noticeably flicker or have lag, and I was looking for that. Aspects both near and far seemed in perfect focus - looking around was completely natural. I asked about the focus, and was told the system reads your eye direction and brings that section into proper focus before your eye has a chance to notice. (Not sure if this is correct, but that's what I was told).
The skeleton was fixed relative to the surrounding tables, floor, and so on. You can see what's actually in the room and so bumping into things isn't a problem.
I can *easily* imagine a comms linkup where you would see the surrounding terrain normally, but have various icons and graphics showing the locations of hidden enemies and other tactical information.
I can also imagine a system that overlays a circuit with schematic information, nominal signal waveforms for comparison to what you see on your scope, repair and replacement of parts with instructions, and so on.
A hardened version of this might be really useful in the field.
What about 3D sickness? (Score:2)
Healthcare? (Score:4, Insightful)
No? ok.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you implying you'd rather see this $22 billion used to fund national healthcare?
Do you realize this works out to ~$66 per citizen?
Not sure where ya'll go for healthcare these days, but that won't go very far anywhere I've ever been.
Re: (Score:2)
Just very very slightly off topic, but addressing the issue (?) raised by Arethan.
That $66 (in my currency) would pay for two months of my three (3) presciptions, 2 pills for blood pressure and one for cholesterol.
So... is that your point?
For Govt funded healthcare - which is the norm in the western world - the govt negotiates bulk discount prices for medicines so that the cost is FAR less than you may expect.
For the doctors who prescribe such things? They are asked to sign up to ... ...Nah, why do I even b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not denying that socialized medicine makes sense for the populace, and that the US healthcare systems is a shit show because "we've" resisted switching. The reality is that healthcare providers in the US have a shitload of loose money available to throw toward lobbying to preserve their way of life, and they use it to great effect. That's the reason things haven't changed, despite several polls over the years always showing that over 70% of voting Americans actually support national healthcare.
But no, I
Re: (Score:2)
I think $65 per citizen is a better use of the money than $170000+ for each AR headset.*
*This is assuming that the $22 billion only results in 121500 IVAS units being purchased.
US Military Spending: $2.1 Trillion in 2021 (Score:1)
$22 billion. Sounds like A Lot, right?
Not on this scale... 1% of the budget is what you might have tipped the paperboy, back when they were an actual thing.
Re:US Military Spending: $2.1 Trillion in 2021 (Score:5, Insightful)
$22 billion. Sounds like A Lot, right?
The US Army has 481,000 personnel.
About 100,000 of those are combat troops.
$22B is $220,000 per soldier. For a frick'n headset.
So, yes, it sounds like a lot.
Re: (Score:1)
Does 22 billion sound like a lot for a jobs program? High tech jobs is what we are really talking about here.
Re: (Score:3)
Does 22 billion sound like a lot for a jobs program?
Unemployment in tech is at record lows. Companies are struggling to find talent. A "jobs program" for tech will just make the shortage worse and add to inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you think most of the 22 billion goes?
Re: (Score:2)
Have not checked specifics but would assume that it goes about 1/4 to China for the hardware, 1/4 the related development and such work at Microsoft, 1/4 Kickback and lobbying, 1/4 Microsoft Profit.
Re: (Score:1)
These are funny money dollars, belonging to other people; inattentive taxpayers... their divisions are given allocations that must be spent, or lost, each annual budget.
You can only fund so many studies of the reproductive habits of fireflies, in the interest of national security, at your brother-in-law's lab, before they become suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
trial? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's expected to most likely be about $1B / year. Which admittedly is still quite a lot of money.
Re:trial? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps (speculating) the issue is that most of the money is to drive development towards bespoke requirements, so producing a smaller number of units would be close to the same price.
Things never change (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked for a company in the mid 2000s that supplied a series of augmented, helmet mounted displays for some of the tank/armored car crews in Iraq. They were red-laser displays only (low cost blue and green laser diodes weren't available at the time) that crew commanders used to site targets and other battle field information.
A couple of years later I was at dinner with a group of people and met a solder who was part of one of the brigades that used our HUD/helmet display. I asked him what he thought of them...turns out that many, many of the troops hated using them. Thanks to an unnamed congressperson, these units were forced on the Army because our company was in a certain state and got a contract to fulfill a large order of HUD/helmet displays.
I guess some things don't change.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked him what he thought of them...turns out that many, many of the troops hated using them.
Why did they hate using them?
How to gain User Acceptance: (Score:2)
"Ok, today we are conducting a training exercise in a simulated environment-"
"Is that a HoloLens? Ew! I don't want to use that."
"I order you to do the training."
"Sir."
So what happens when... (Score:1)
Porn (Score:2)
"may not want to use or use as intended"
Yep - I do believe that is what they are worried about.
Nothing new under the sun here. (Score:2)
That's nothing by military standards (Score:2)
I mean, a 20 billion project for a toy that soldiers don't find to be effective (as is the saying, no more @#$%@% batteries in the field) is pretty small change.
We are dumping 1 trillion (and rising) over ten years in a new plane that is already has no real operational value compared to drones and existing support aircraft. And guess what, there are plans to make an even more expensive version. Because Russia is so scary (well, yes, nukes, but also, not really) and we could go to war with China (we can't af