More on Next-Generation Army Gear 653
An anonymous reader writes "The Army is funding development of new super suits. From the article: 'The Army's future soldier will resemble something out of a science fiction movie'. 'The new system has the ability for each soldier to be tied into tactical local and wide-area networks with an onboard computer that sits at the base of the soldier's back' and 'The helmet has sensors that register vibrations of the cranial cavity so [soldiers] don't have to have a microphone'. The article features several photos of the suits."
yeah (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yeah (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yeah (Score:3, Informative)
There is an animated TV show (Roughnecks? Something like that) also based on the story, but is (I'm told) a bit more true to
Mobile Infantry (Score:3, Insightful)
shines the name
shines the name
of Rodger Young!"
Re:yeah (Score:4, Funny)
With the history of most government and military contracts to go by, I bet they solve the even more trivial problem of making it not work even for its intended wearer.
Re:yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
Military snooping comes in two forms: COMINT and ELINT. Avoiding COMINT observation might be easy, as all authorized users can synch-up encryption keys ahead of time (which only works until an enemy mugs one of your guys- but that's close enough).
But avoiding ELINT surveillance is a different matter. The more you rely on infantry reporting their actions on radio, the more likely the opposition will be to use radios to guess your position and evade the assault.
thus not broadcasting any false information to others,
Actually, if the enemy captured a fancy-suit and tried to use it, you'd want him to continue broadcasting. Of course, the data should be flagged so your own troops know not to rely on it, but the commander will like to know where the suit goes, so he can direct a retrieval mission. Or simply put a JDAM on it.
Trivial problems, I would think.
No, they're quite important. Combat is fast and chaotic. Any mechanism meant to keep the device out of enemy hands runs the risk of hitting a false-positive and denying itself to a legitimate US soldier, who might not have time to re-enter a password when taking fire.
And then just TRY to match the biometric voice-recognizer when sucking out from a pierced lung...
(On a related note, tanks don't have ignition keys.)
Bleex? (Score:5, Informative)
The uniform from the waist down will have a robotic-powered system that is connected directly to the soldier. This system could use pistons to actually replicate the lower body, giving the soldier "upwards of about 300 percent greater lifting and load-carriage capability," DeGay said. "We are looking at potentially mounting a weapon directly to the uniform system and now the soldier becomes a walking gun platform."
I suspect that they may be calling on Berkeley for their Bleex [berkeley.edu] project on this one. The Berkeley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton exists now, and I'd imagine with 10 or 15 years to work on it they could easily meet the 300% lifting and load carrying requirements. Of course the Japanese have envisioned soldiers as walking gun platforms for years. I wonder how long it'll be before we see Mecha Warriors in real life...
Re:Bleex? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, some of this stuff would be pretty damn rad. And the idea that the combat gear that will be available in 2020 will "absorb unlimited numbers of machine-gun rounds" is all nice and everything (although, the fact that Jean-Louis "Dutch" DeGay keeps dropping the word "nanotechnology" makes me hesitant). But how the hell is this all going to be powered? Health monitors, WAN, radio, fancy optical display, etc, plus all of the other gear they need (lights, night-vision, etc), plus a power supply of some sort (battery/solar?) all super rugid and topping out at 50 pounds (~23 KG). I wish them the best, but right now, I don't think so.
Re:Bleex? (Score:3, Funny)
Or you could put a reciprocol moter powerd by air pressure generated from flexing of the gloves. Or even a simple hand crank+dynamo that you sit down and wind whenever you have the time.
Re:Bleex? (Score:5, Funny)
It is obvious. By the two wheeled battery cart the soldier pulls behind him/her.
Re:Bleex? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hence the need for a powered exoskeleton that increases carrying capacity 300%. 50% of the increase will be devoted to carrying the power/battery system.
I'm curious about this personal armor that can take a machine gun round in stride, simple momentum tells me that isn't really possible. And speaking of momentum, I'm imagining these super soldiers having all sorts of maneuverability issues, encumbered by armor, exoskeletons, and all manner of electronics. Maybe you equip one squad as these human tanks, but you still need normal soldiers for walking to the second floor of shoddy third worls construction, entering buildings/tunnels stealthily, etc.
Useful cool tech:
Better/fuller armor. We don't lose as many lives, but soldiers are losing a lot of hands/feet/arms/etc. Folks are going to realize this soon.
Video gun sights. Stay behind that wall and just stick you gun into the line of fire.
Better communications. Securely relay each soldiers location back to tactical command so reinforcments/flanking actions/artilery hits the right spot.
Anti-Sniper systems. Radar systems track bullets back to the sniper location and fire a response within 3 seconds of first shot. Bring a new meaning to "one shot one kill" to enemy snipers.
Remote mini guns. Why send humans into an enemy held building. Send a team of remote controlled armored Uzi's into a the bulding.
Re:Bleex? (Score:5, Informative)
m1v1 = m2v2
m1 = 20g
v1 = 1400 mph (mach 2 - unrealisticly fast)
m2 = 200lbs (light guy with equipment)
v2 = 0.3 mph
0.3 mph isn't much of a hit. And of course, the numbers are way high - if the bullet goes any distance it is probably going far slower.
Granted, I still wouldn't want to be shot, but if the force were spread out over your entire body, you'd have no problem taking the hit at all - and of course that is all that body armor does - that and spread the impulse over more time, reducing the force.
Re:Bleex? (Score:5, Funny)
In which case, why send the soldier at all? Just imagine the horror of all those first person shooter afficienados, finally unleashed to control remote drones on the other side of the world.
The ultimate low-ping bastard!
And if you get hit, well, the respawn point is just back at the machine carrier.
Re:Bleex? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, unfortunately the last incarnation I saw added some serious weight to the gun, which is really a bad thing. I'm not sure if the problem is old tech or lack of milspec tech. Gun sights have to take a fair bit of abuse, and big, heavy, unbalanced games are a problem in combat. I suspect the best option would be a custom gun made for the role, with better recoil absorbtion, integrated electronics housing, and purpose built grips so the whole hand stays protected.
Re:Bleex? (Score:4, Insightful)
When they opened the ISN, they had a big shindig in the courtyard, and they were showing off some of this stuff. Its not a matter of "I'm assuming they'll actually figure that one out at about the same time we get our flying cars." its a matter of "I'm assuming they'll actually figure out how to manufacture these at a reasonable cost by 2020."
These are plans for technologies they're already fairly along with, not pie-in-the-sky stuff.
More importantly, how will it be cooled? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can power an exoskeleton suit with batteries, fuel cell, gas turbine, whatever but all that energy you are using ends up as heat anyway, wearing it you are going to be lit up like a christmas tree in the infrared. The number of machine gun rounds it can absorb will be near irrelevant because the opposition are going to be raining anti-tank armaments down on you.
Why have soldiers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to make a lot more sense than still sending a real person in... plus the army would have no trouble getting recruits to play counterstrike.
Re:Why have soldiers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Electro-magnetic emissions. A human soldier can turn off his WAN/LAN if he doesn't want to be detected. A remote controlled robot becomes about as useful as a boulder when this happens.
Unless you want to use trailing cables of course...
Re:Why have soldiers? (Score:3, Funny)
grunts are cheaper than licenced copies of windows ce and a wireless card.
Re:Why have soldiers? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why have soldiers? (Score:4, Funny)
Or if they reached their preset kill limit, they would just shut down.
Exoskeletons and the central nervous system (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember at one point the military was looking for a full robotic exoskeleton that went above and below the waist. I believe that they gave up and decided to persue lower-body-only technology because they were running into problems with the exoskeleton ripping the tendons and ligaments of those who wore the suit prototypes. The human stretch reflex is a function of the central nervous system and is designed to prevent limbs from being placed into positions that stress the connective tissues. Obviously,
Psssst! (Score:3, Interesting)
Psssst! Wanna see my gun?
This just really does beg to be joked about. And as for the nano-technology; I see lots of problems. For instance - how does the nanobots know the difference between the person and the clothing? Will they accidentally convert the person's skin from one thing to another? Think about it - one of the reasons crimes get solved is because all things leave traces of them
Re:Nano-brained designers (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the trend in small arms for the past 50 years has been steadily downward -- shorter range and less powerful rounds. There are two interrelated reasons for this.
First, outside of the sniper role, a high-power round like .30-06 (or even 7.62 NATO) is overkill; in most situations an infantryman isn't going to be doing aimed fire past 200 - 300 meters, so small arms that are effective out to 600 - 1000 meters just aren't needed. Current doctrine says that anything more than 200 meters away is engaged with heavy weapons (heavy machine gun, rocket launcher, artillery, air strike, etc). If you have soldiers with exoskeletons, this will let you take your heavy weapons off of the HMMV and have them hand-carried by your exos instead. Other than that, tactical doctrine doesn't change much if at all.
Second, if each round is smaller and weighs less, the soldier can either carry more ammo for his weapon or can carry parts & ammo for a squad-level heavy weapon. Having exos doesn't change this -- you're still going to want to keep pretty much the same distribution of weapons in a squad as you have now. The only difference will be that your troops will be able to carry a lot more equipment -- more ammo for their personal weapon and the squad weapon, more food & water, heavier armor, etc.
It's important to remember that infantry combat is a team sport. Each soldier's gear is tailored to maximize the entier team's effectiveness, not necessarily his individual effectiveness. This means that the gear which is appropriate for a member of an infantry squad in a combined arms unit isn't necessarily going to be ideal for individual survival or for use by irregular forces (partisans/militia).
Heinlein (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Heinlein (Score:5, Informative)
Parse Error (Score:5, Funny)
Syntax error at #9871289 line 2 at or near '(, but', missing ')'
Comprehension of post aborted due to compilation errors.
Re:Heinlein (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, I know someone in the animation side of things that worked on it.
Basically, they screwed up the budget completely, and eventually had to decide: Suits, or Bugs?
Bugs won
Suit Hacking (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Suit Hacking (Score:5, Funny)
And the nice "hi, i'm over here" of wireless... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like a portable target beacon for missiles!
Re:Suit Hacking Gator (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine yourself in the battlefield and suddenly a red blinking popup in your eye. Is it an enemy alert, battery low maby? No, your one of the 500 lucky people, Blink once to receive....wtf?
Re:Suit Hacking (Score:2)
One Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are we going to be fighting with this stuff? Terrorists? Belgium?
Re:One Question: (Score:5, Interesting)
Notice this is defense spending instead of offense spending. Build these things, train our soldiers on them, and nobody's gonna wanna fight us.
(That's the theory anyway.)
Re:One Question: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing stays exclusive for long(unless of course it is never deployed!), from defectors to captured/dead soldiers, abandoned gear for reverse engineering, keeping military technology a secret is very difficult. Why do you think the engineers for defense contr
Asymmetric warfare, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, you'd play into their hands. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor does your objection take into account factors like political will and competence.
9/11 didn't happen because it just wasn't possible to get the necessary intel. 9/11 happened because of 20+ years of just not caring enough to look into it.
Re:One Question: (Score:3, Funny)
-Waynes World on SNL, around the end of the Cold War, roughly paraphrased because I was a little young at the time;)
Don't worry... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Don't worry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One Question: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One Question: (Score:4, Funny)
Nope we will be fighting giant squid-like robots that fly in spiral patterns.
Re:One Question: (Score:4, Funny)
Plus, the higher the tech, the worse the reliability all too often.
"Sarge, my CPU died. All my displays are down. I can't target. Wait, there's a guy with a ROCK crawling up to me.... ARRRGGGHHHHH! (transmission lost)"
Disappointed (Score:3, Funny)
I was hoping for some anime utility suit or Gundam mech you climb inside of or something.
What does this matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What does this matter (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the classic trickle-down military economy at work. Dump billions into military development and eventually the discoveries find their way into society. Not much more than corporate welfare but it starts a few levels higher.
Re:What does this matter (Score:2)
Happy days are coming.
Re:What does this matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Read Clausewicz, then get back to me.
Re:What does this matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does this matter (Score:5, Insightful)
A victory doesn't count until you win the hearts and minds, one way or another, of the people who live on the ground where the 19 year old is standing. As long as there are people with weapons, and the will to resist, who see the 19 year old as a target you haven't really won anything.
"For, although one may be very strong in armed
forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives"
Machiavelli, "The Prince"
Not sure the doctrine that you have victory when you have a guy with a rifle standing on captured ground has worked since World War I and it didn't really work then either.
Re:What does this matter (Score:2)
Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whatever (Score:2)
lots of choice quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
"the 2020 model will remind you of an ominous creature out of a science fiction movie"
I love the use of "ominous"
"When you have a uniform with this new nanotechnology, it can absorb unlimited numbers of machine-gun rounds,"
Wouldn't that get kind of heavy?
"We are looking at potentially mounting a weapon directly to the uniform system and now the soldier becomes a walking gun platform."
Now THAT sounds like fun...
Re:lots of choice quotes (Score:3, Interesting)
No really? (Score:5, Funny)
And here is my thinking they would look like something out of a period drama.
Linux? (Score:2, Funny)
Full Control? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Full Control? (Score:2)
Stormtroopers... (Score:2, Insightful)
I know (Score:2)
So are they the good guys are the bad guys?
They ought to make the suits look blue or pink or put one of those Walmart smiley faces on them :P.
Target wi-fi (Score:5, Interesting)
Wonder if these suits will come with an excessive moisture sensor? ("I think Johnson has just entered combat - or is incontinent").
George Lucas's Dream - A Reality (Score:5, Funny)
Re:George Lucas's Dream - A Reality (Score:4, Funny)
Ok one down, two to go.
Re:George Lucas's Dream - A Reality (Score:4, Funny)
Announcer: Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Re:George Lucas's Dream - A Reality (Score:5, Funny)
We're Doomed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We're Doomed (Score:2)
Re:We're Doomed (Score:3, Funny)
* Like help aiming?
* Change the type of gun?
* Use a template battle situation?"
or, in a Robocop-esque way:
Directive 4: Armed assault against any member of Microsoft management will result in the suit BSOD'ing.
You would have thought.. (Score:5, Funny)
Self fulfilling prophecy (Score:2)
Medical Monitoring? (Score:5, Funny)
Radio traffic: "Alpha Bravo Charlie appears to be out of action! Doctor, can you give us a report on his telemetry?
Doctor: "Is he wearing that black, 50 pound Darth Vader suit?"
Radio traffic: "Yes!"
Doctor: "It's probably sun stroke."
Vision not required in 2020 (Score:5, Insightful)
Vacuous statement (Score:2)
What about EMP weapons... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reducing soldier costs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reducing soldier costs (Score:3, Insightful)
Private armies already happening in Iraq (Score:5, Informative)
I like the fine staff these firms bring to the operation - like Apartheid-era South Africans with warrants in their own country for crimes against humanity.
Re:Reducing soldier costs (Score:3, Interesting)
The Iraq war and the Afghanistan conflict are a training arena for the world's army for when we storm North Korea. Did you notice the second largest army in Iraq is now South Korea and no longer Britain? Humm... 1 + 1 = ?
Imagine a large, well-trained, peaceful army in Iraq. That would be two large, well-trained peaceful armies in the area. Imagine how much effect they will have, even with no American soldiers within 2,000 miles!
W
Another obligatory Slashdot joke... (Score:2, Funny)
Somebody put me out of my misery.
Not a great place for the computer (Score:4, Interesting)
"...an onboard computer that sits at the base of the soldier's back"
People into concealed-carry handguns have been warning each other about carrying anything hard against the small of your back for quite a while. The thought is that a backwards fall could damage your spine quite nicely.
So now.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets hope they include (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, thats right. Back in the late 80s or early 90s the US military wanted to use velcro for pockets and whatnot on military uniforms. Unfortunately, none of the higher ups had ever used velcro, nor knew that velcro made a swwwissh ripping noise when opened, so when they arrived, the soldiers thought they might get shot if they opened their pocket for a condom or something. So they spent many more millions of dollars to invent stealth velcro.
Today they use snaps and zippers.
Really don't see this happening (Score:3, Interesting)
Quotable (Score:3, Funny)
"The Future Force Warrior will be a responsive and formidable member of an invincible battle space team," DeGay explained, describing the system scheduled to be fielded by 2010."
Invincible eh? That's some pretty neat gear... does it include a quick dipping in the River Styx?
Dressed to die (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole "future" warrior schtick will complicate soldier's life (hauling 150lbs of crap everywhere you go, being accountable for it and its condition, and having to haul your wounded buddies ass out of 'the shit'), which is hard enough as it is. The Pentagon needs to leave the toys in the locker and make better decisions. The things I always thought about when I was 'humpin' around with my lpc's and m16 with alice on my back were something like this...
Light, effective weapons (caseless ammo, call-home capability, lightweight/composite tech, and imprinting to the soldier are do-able)
Miniturized/ruggedized commo which works with implanted chips (if you're a soldier, your ass is 0wn3d anyway) which give biotelemetry without bullshit readouts. Only the medic/commanders need to see what condition a soldier is in. They could even aggregate the data.
Limb-replacement tech...yes, regrow your amputated bits. Rehabilitiation tech needs to pull its sorry butt into the new century.
Immune system amping (be able to eat/drink just about anything), better treatments for bacterial infections and 'derm' tech which would give the soldier a patch that would help sustain their opitate/endorphin/adrenaline balances...combat the stress of combat. When people aren't going apeshit in-ranks casualties are significantly reduced (yes, a chemical-control cocktail). Got a buddy who has crapped himself after that last RPG took out the track behind yours? Just step on his neck and slap one of these patches on his ass and don't worry about him hosing everyone in a panic.
Good food.
The ability to eat anything would be helpful too.
Oh, and having the soldiers adapt to and understand the culture they're going to be fighting with/in. There's more than one way to win a war.
Yeah, as usual, compared to what would really make a difference (don't even go towards the "not fight in the first place" argument--humanity sucks) a bunch of neato armor bits and some computer stuff is really a very easy way out.
Cheers.
Re:Dressed to die (Score:3, Interesting)
Human intelligence is not really the purview of the US military. Their intelligence arm, mostly integrated with individual units, is primarily tasked with synthesis, that is, gleaning the operational meaning from existing information. Not to undercut the DIA, but intelligence gathering has been primarily the domain of the CIA. Perhaps a subtle diff
Useless... (Score:4, Insightful)
PR disaster waiting to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
There are several Funny-modded posts pointing out that the 2020 suit looks like a Darth Vader costume. Hell, even the mil spokesman describes it as "ominous". Nobody seems to see this as a drawback. The damn things look evil.
A lot of planning nowadays assumes that the most likely conflict scenarios involving US forces are so-called "fourth-generation wars", where cultural perceptions and media strategy are as important as hardware. The intifada is still the textbook example. Those kids weren't throwing stones because they didn't have access to guns. They were throwing stones because stones against tanks makes a great video-bite for the media.
So: on the "imperial" side we have legions of anonymous mooks in hulking black armour and face-concealing visors. Backed up by horrifying robotic killing machines. On the "rebel" side we have rag-tag, lightly-armed folk in nice earth-hued organic-looking clothing. Got that? Now put it on a TV screen. Regardless of your political views on a given conflict, there is a huge amount of cultural programming that leads Western viewers to root for the rebels. (Non-Western viewers generally don't need much convincing.)
Another, more worrying aspect: there is a lot of experimental and real-world evidence to show that the willingness of troops, police etc to commit atrocities is strongly correlated with their anonymity. Visors and even sunglasses increase the likelihood; big bold nametags reduce it. Anything that makes eye-contact difficult also makes it harder to win the trust of any locals you have to deal with.
And haven't these people even read the Evil Overlord List [eviloverlord.com]? It's item #1 for crying out loud!
Still fighting the Korean War (Score:3, Insightful)
Large quantities of heavy metal doesn't always achieve the objective. And the US has a consitent record of losing the lot by calling in an airstrike when a cup of tea would have done a better job. This is just more of the same.
If you have a look at what nations with a successful peacekeeping and low intensity warfare record (eg. Finland, the UK and Australia) do, they make sure that they don't look like robocop. They take their helmets off, so that they are regarded as human beings. They're polite (well, politeish). They don't rely on sensor systems; they talk to people.
All the technology in the world won't overcome cluelessness and myopia.
Re:Lynndie England's panties with an RFID tag (Score:2, Offtopic)
Why, oh why did you have to bring up that up? Now I have to add that to the long list of mental images I never want to see again...
Re:Lynndie England's panties with an RFID tag (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lynndie England's panties with an RFID tag (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, not saying that we are or are not dropping concrete these days, but I would be a little surprised if we prefaced the invasion and occupation with anything less than the most lethal air power. If you know otherwise, though, by all means school me.
I don't see how you can say roadside IEDs are designe
detecting signals (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nervous? (Score:5, Insightful)
To name a few:
Somalia - Best of intentions, feed a starving nation. I have yet to hear a good conspiracy theory as to how this was a plot for US domination. The result though was a cluster fuck that lead to a handful of US and other nationalities getting killed. In the end no one ended up fed (for very long at least) and only more carnage was achieved.
Hattie - Good intentions, restore a democracy. Result? Restored a guy who everyone thought was a saint who (arguably) turned into villain who snatch away democracy. Now there is Hattie 2 where an attempt was made to fix the mistake. If it was worth anyone's time is still yet to be seen.
Serbia - Good intentions, stop a mass genocide. The operation was preformed despite widespread protest both in the US and abroad. After the fact though, you don't hear anyone complaining about the outcome these days. The genocide is over and Serbia is well on its way towards democracy.
Iraq - At the risk of -1 flamebait, I'll just say that in my opinion, it was done with the best intentions. I think the US was genuinely surprised when no chemical weapons were used and the people didn't come out in the street with flowers. Offing an evil dictator isn't a bad thing in it of itself. It is the fact that you need to kill a pile of other people in the process is what makes it bad. I think the jury is still out on this. I look at Iraq like Serbia. At the time it seemed like a dumb idea to a lot of people, but today we recognize it as the right move that ended a genocide. If 10 years from now Iraq looks like Iran, it was probably a failure. If 10 years from now Iraq looks Japan, I think history will forgive the US.
The US is aggressive at time, but I think the world needs a little bit of that. Some times a nation is needed that will crack a few skulls to do what is right. Personally, I like the balance we have today. Europe does an excellent job offering restraint and diplomacy, while the US is generally willing to jump the gun if it thinks those things are taking too long. Diplomacy is not always the answer. I think Rwanda makes it pretty clear that you can't always give the other side more time before you take action. Europe restrains the US from crusading any time they see something wrong, and the US keeps Europe from sitting on its haunches while evil people do their work.
Re:Nervous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me for a minute... there are over 260 countries in the world. You are not an expert. I've been to about 13 countries, and to about 70% of the U.S. states, and I am certainly no expert.
Anyway, the U.S. is far from the most secular. [bbc.co.uk] The separation
Re:Making Deadlier Soldiers Makes Job More Dangero (Score:3, Informative)
Consider that the cost of the 9/11 operation was about a half a million dollars over five years. In response, we've spent about 150 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan in just two years.
We are outspending the enemy 300,000 to 1. This takes pyrrhic victory to a whole new level!