CS: Misc-Land Warrior - you decide!
From: SADW, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't remain silent any longer on Land Warrior. The article below is something I wrote for SADW a little while back. I think it more than amply counters the hoopla which this system is generating elsewhere. Nick Steadman -- GAO READS THE RIOT ACT ON LAND WARRIOR PROJECT: a mid-Dec 99 US General Accounting Office report (GAO/NSIAD-00-28) on Battlefield Automation, which we have carefully studied, was highly critical of the US army/USMC $2.1 billion Land Warrior project, led by the army, which was embarked upon in Jan 96. The equipment was originally scheduled to be fielded by Sep 2000. As readers will recall, Land Warrior (aka 21st Century Soldier, Future Soldier or Soldier 21) is the suite of new weapon accessories (gun videos, laser rangefinders, thermal weapon sights, close combat optics, digital compasses, laser aiming pointers etc), a helmet-mounted head-up display (with image intensifiers and laser detectors), protective clothing (including body armour), load-carrying equipment, radio communications, GPS, battlefield personal computers (with touch-screen panels) & associated software. It's all planned eventually to accompany the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), but in the short term would be deployed in conjunction with the M16A2 with the Modular Weapon System upgrade, allowing a 'mix & match' selection of the new sighting systems and 'black boxes' to be clamped above the receiver or around the handguard. The basic project cost has already increased by $700m from an initial estimate of $1.4 billion, and Land Warrior will now not be adopted on time because the necessary technologies have not yet been fully perfected; the new fielding forecast is for FY 2004, 'at the earliest'. GAO said that, in view of the size of the budget for Land Warrior, oversight of the project has been inadequate. Land Warrior will reportedly not yet inter-operate with the army's Force XXI digitised battlefield system for brigade & lower formations, and army staff have obtained a waiver deferring the date by which this should be resolved until well after Land Warrior may eventually be fielded. So, for the time being, data cannot be transmitted between the two systems, since the necessary software has yet to be developed. This means, for example, that troops with Land Warrior would be unable to report enemy sightings or call in air or artillery strikes using their digitally-enhanced equipment. And it would be unlikely to improve their 'situational awareness' in any way. Furthermore, GAO said, unresolved technical and 'human factor' problems may make Land Warrior ineffective. The equipment is overweight, poorly designed and uncomfortable, battery power is inadequate, battery logistics 'uncertain' and there are problems of electromagnetic interference. The load-carrying harness attracted special criticism, with GAO saying that troops had difficulty raising their heads high enough in the prone position to fire their weapons, since their backpacks rode up and forced their helmets forward. In fact, we recall this was a specific criticism that arose from the very first trials of Land Warrior. Even worse, when troops rolled on their backs, the new equipment held their bodies too far off the ground, temporarily producing a 'stranded turtle' effect, ie troops were stuck there! As far back as Sep 96, GAO says, it warned that Land Warrior was an expensive, high risk project, that inter-operability had yet to be demonstrated and that technical and ergonomic problems were unresolved, citing (for example) the fact that the battery for the computer & radio only ran for under two instead of the planned 12 hours, and that the equipment was so heavy & uncomfortable that it impeded troops' movement. At that time it recommended purchase be deferred pending clarification of the requirement and resolution of technical shortcomings. It also wanted the army to ensure that troops with Land Warrior equipment could 'outperform' those with existing equipment. GAO said all the army had done since then was to clarify the requirement at 34,000 systems, and that so far the project had not yielded any 'workable prototypes'. One reason may be that the army had increasingly opted to develop new technologies instead of using tried & tested ideas. In detail, GAO commented that:- - Land Warrior prototype systems delivered for testing in Apr 98 failed airborne certification because the computer/radio system could not be worn beneath a parachute and instead had to be placed in a jump bag attached to the soldier and tossed out first. It also took up too much space on a plane. When jumping, some troops got entangled in the equipment and when the jump bag finally hit the ground, the equipment was damaged. - There were interference problems with this equipment when elements were used in close proximity to each other, and electronic emissions exceeded m
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the preponderance of "talk" computer programs i'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to devise "key words" that would "fry the circuits" Ken Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just to add to this. Could the thing be programmed to read its wearers "bio-rhythms", pulse, blood pressure etc. Both at rest and in stressful situations? Can't get use to military stuff not being made with big nuts and bolts to make 'em "soldier proof". Best wishes ken -- I'm sure it could, but (a) is it practical and (b) is it foolproof? You can be captured alive. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Theoretically it would not be too difficult to 'key' each unit to one individual using biometric sensors, disabling the unit if there was no correct signal. Also given frequency hopping techniques and digital encryption it might be days before a correct sequence could be found to re-activate the unit (if at all). Effectively making it useless in a tactical sense. If the wearer was confirmed as killed a remote 'self destruct' could be used to 'fry' the electronics - not as sci-fi as it sounds as the small handheld radios issued to pro-American irregular forces were equipped with a button that burned out the electronics (useful in case of possible capture - unfortunately most apparently used it to ignore orders they didn't want to hear). The main problem with Land Warrior is the total load the soldier will be expected to carry. A complete Land Warrior outfit for 2-3 day operations, including spare batteries, food, ammunition, etc is reckoned at well over a hundred pounds, most of which can't be jettisoned on 'contact' with the enemy as its Land Warrior itself! Without reducing that load substantially or providing vehicles or helicopters for almost all movements a Land Warrior equipped force is going to need to be mighty fit or its not going to move too fast for very long. Additional problems like reliability and waterproofing also add to the problems it faces in the real world. This type of kit needs to be 'soldier proof' and I would have liked to see the support team necessary to keep this platoon in action for the exercise. It was probably larger than the platoon itself! Admittedly this is still experimental and the support numbers will drop as the system is developed but its still going to be a substantial percentage of forces in the field. So what you gain in efficiency of the front line troops is offset by extra support elements and logistics, also expense. They haven't said what each individual 'Land Warrior' outfit will cost but I bet its substantial. Regards Jerry -- It's very expensive, the prototype I saw costed up some time ago was close to six figures if I remember correctly, the one described in the article was a later prototype. I pity the poor SOB who has one of these gizmos and an OICW! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect Land Warrior is equipped with remote disbling tools that would allow commanders to lock out or disable units believed to have falen into enemy hands (or even act as a beacon for incoming missiles/bombs once that had been confirmed). Regards Jerry -- I assume it would have something like there is in power boats, if the unit is pulled away from the body it has a "kill" switch, however the enemy would rapidly become wise to that and it wouldn't be difficult to keep it wired up while removing it. I'm sure if it is ever deployed it will become priority #1 for the enemy force to try and capture one. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suppose the same analogy is when the enemy captures a gun and shoots you with it. but it don't mean that you arm our guys with pointy sticks(still legal, just) Happy shooting Ken -- I don't think that is a very good analogy to be honest, if the other side knows where all your troops are you are in much worse trouble than if you lose a rifle. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-land warrior
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Still, what happens if one of these headsets is captured? Then the enemy knows where the whole unit is in great detail. Even if the rest of the unit disengages the captured headset as soon as they find out, even a brief glimpse will tell the enemy where the whole unit is located. [...] Absolutely not to mention soldiers that desert, or just plain go over to the other side. Chances are that this equipment will find a 'better' application in law enforcement. In addition, such equipment will just have to be made just that more complicated by virtue of what it entails: every unit will have to be assigned a daily code that corresponds to the likes of IFF (Identification - Friend or Foe), so that if one of those units captured, it will be of time limited use. Very possibly, this equipment will be used for those special missions (SAS, SEALS, SF, etc.) where you will want to know all those things that such equipment will provide. But in the big war scenario, it would add so much noise to the already noisy radio environment as to make it a liability. ET -- I don't think radio noise would be a problem, even when I was in the Signals we had that problem licked, with the advances in technology, burst transmission and so on I can't see how it would be a problem. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-land warrior
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regarding EMP and the like, the sapphire substrate chips used to stop the effect are, I hear, the most beautiful things on God's earth. This was from an engineer, so I suspect it is still some way behind Anna Kournikova! But the UK and US mil. bods have spent billions on hardened equipment improvement, after they realised just why the Russians were still using vacuum tubes and plate steel. With good hardening, the electronics can, apparently, now be made tough enough to survive where most people would not. Unless they are in use, in which case they fail someway short of the operators. However, it is very unlikely that anyone would actually use an EMP weapon in a small war, as the only decent EMP pulse known comes from a nuclear weapons detonation. This means it isn't a small war anymore. The modern radio systems used by LandWarrior mean that it is very, very hard to detect the signals, even if you known exactly when and where to look, as they are radio-noise level limited, and change frequency hundreds of times a second, through quite a wide band. This means you need very powerful, very sensitive detectors and radio systems, powerful computers to carry out the Fourier Transforms on it (remember that SETI is using thousands of parallel systems to try to locate ET life), and then a fire control system to send a shell to the right place. 1 shell per man is a high price to pay, and remember, the systems do not radiate continuously, only when they are sending, so you have to guess they haven't moved while the shell (or whatever) is in the air. Even if the war went nuclear, at least 6 sats would have to be taken out to make a hole in coverage, and thats assumeing the spare sats were not brought online by the US. Plus destroying GPS would bring the US down on you like a ton of bricks from a great height. Then there is the fallback of using Glonas, the Russian system, which modern GPS systems can. Then, finally, there is the fact that the system has the local net systems that Steve mentioned. Even if all that was destroyed, odds are the little boxes still have a digital compass and map, or even a micro silicon gyroscope, which will still be better than the old way of looking at a map and using a compass. So, we have thought of all these ideas when we thought of doing these systems in the first place. It is similar to the old thing about gunfights:"If you use full auto, you will be the first one shot." That is, unless everyone is firing fullauto, then it goes back to the original odds. The same if everyone if radiating very slightly. After all, a man can be seen from better than 2000 yards by a thermal imager unit in a tank, but it doesn't mean tanks are going to replace infantry. The increase in "productivity" of a man who can talk to everyone and is fully telemetered, can see further, can shoot more accurately, can be found instantly by his own side, can send back pictures of enemy structures, request evac, food, etc. and knows that his friends are off to the left just in front, is going to be far better than an equally trained man who doesn't have one of these boxes. He won't hide in foxholes, knowing he can't be seen, he won't desert, if he dies or is captured, or wounded, he can be located, he won't shoot at his side as often, he won't think he is the only guy on his side left alive, and he won't have to yell "Cover me!" as he runs forward. These systems will make our side better and more able than the best in the world... If the batteries don't go flat. And I have a solution for that. Nigel -- Still, what happens if one of these headsets is captured? Then the enemy knows where the whole unit is in great detail. Even if the rest of the unit disengages the captured headset as soon as they find out, even a brief glimpse will tell the enemy where the whole unit is located. In their training exercise with it they still lost three men to a sniper. That's three units lying out in the open. And in reality snipers are trained to engage far beyond the 300m they described. If they were engaged at 800m the headsets would be virtually useless, unless it is a very sloppy sniper. Once he's killed them all or pinned them down their headsets would be easy to capture. EMP hardening has obviously come a long way since I last had anything to do with it. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-land warrior
From: andrew, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only a few months the french successfully sabotaged tank trials held by the Greek army by using a small transmitter to block GPS signals. Naturally the tank crews were trained to rely on GPS and as result demonstrations of british, german and u.s. tanks were a fiasco. Of course in a real war the enemy wouldn't stoop to such underhand, dirty tricks. Garbage in - garbage out. -- In a REAL war, a 1 megaton warhead exploded under the GPS satellite would kill it with EMP. I know they're EMP hardened but they're not tough enough to survive a nuclear explosion. But I wonder if anyone would do that, because so many foreign armies rely on US GPS satellites! I don't know that the US uses, but the British Army has an emergency relay system in the event satellites are knocked out by EMP. My job in the army was to help deploy it in the event of a nuclear attack. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Hmm > >What happens when an enemy sniper or FOO captures one >of these headsets that so nicely show you where all >your own troops are? > >Tim : ) Steve, & Tim, What's even so much more important, is that old saying about radio and radar: if it radiates, it's a beacon. The U.S. Military seems to think that it has the lock on technology, when it comes to fielded communications. But, when push comes to shove, and if the wrong adversary is chosen, what seems to be such a nice little toy right now will very possibly rend itself useless in short order. Either the emitter will become a good locator of the tactical center, and become its own Judas, or it will draw attention to itself by easily being detected, and then jammed. Along with jamming is spoofing, that art of sending out more powerful signals that confuse the intended recipient. Spread spectrum (or secure communication) is just as easily detected as either CW (continuous wave) or SSB (single side band). It matters only in the detection and processing of the signal. Much of this stuff is so cheap that a third world country outfitting a small force with it would pose a serious problem for any NATO unit deploying it. The hitch is in training those troops to be effective detectors, something that takes a bit of time, and well as having technology that mimics the stuff that you might be up against. If it can be done, it can also be undone. ET -- The main problem with all these electronic gizmos is the effect of EMP. Unless technology has come a long way lately you can't build a Faraday cage around all these battery operated rifles and helmets and so on. But on the other hand, there are a lot of people out there designing gizmos that generate EMP. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: "Tim Jeffreys", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm What happens when an enemy sniper or FOO captures one of these headsets that so nicely show you where all your own troops are? Tim : ) Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Land Warrior gives platoon big advantage in field test By Matthew Cox FORT POLK, La. - Land Warrior has passed its first major field test, officials say, proving the complex computer system can give infantrymen the home-field advantage even on an unfamiliar battlefield. Armed with the latest version of the Army's Land Warrior, a platoon of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division parachuted into Fort Polk on Sept. 8 to assess its performance when matched against a highly trained opposing force at the Joint Readiness Training Center. The exercise was part of the Joint Contingency Force Advanced Warfighting Experiment designed to evaluate how a number of new technologies might affect the way forces fight in the future. The experiment, scheduled to run through Sept. 21, involves more than 4,000 soldiers from the 82nd, 10th Mountain and 4th Infantry (Mechanized) divisions as well as a company of Marines. Keeping in touch Despite heavy rains and high humidity, Land Warrior's microprocessor and built-in global positioning satellite system enabled every soldier in 2nd Platoon, C Company, 3rd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment to acquire targets, navigate with precision over foreign terrain and remain in constant contact with leaders during the intensive week of force-on-force and live-fire operations. "It's an enormous achievement," said program director Col. Bruce Jette. "So far, the system has met and demonstrated all that we expected it to." Jette had reason to be upbeat. The successful test comes just two years after costly system failures forced a complete program overhaul. Land Warrior's newest prototypes were delivered June 5 to Fort Bragg, N.C. Since then, the platoon of paratroopers has been working closely with engineers to become proficient with the system while identifying areas that need improvement. They learned how to access maps and graphics, locate each other and communicate using voice and instant messaging features. While often frustrating, the tedious training appeared to pay off quickly after the Land Warrior platoon hit the drop zone as part of 3rd Battalion's seizure of the airfield. Locating the assembly area at night often is a time-consuming task for paratroopers, who must first determine their location by using a map and terrain association. But for soldiers armed with Land Warrior, the task proved surprisingly simple. Once the system was unpacked and booted up, each soldier used the heads-up display in the eyepiece to access a pre-loaded map of the area. On it, each soldier's location was marked, so they could all walk directly to the assembly point. "Approximately 45 minutes after time on target, we had 85 percent accountability," said Sgt. 1st Class Rodney Stephens, adding normal assemblies can take more than twice that long. One squad was delayed after coming into contact with a sniper from the 1st Battalion (Airborne), 509th Infantry Regiment, JRTC's opposing-force unit, soon after landing. "He fired about five shots and three went down," recalled Spc. Anthony Romeo. "He was a good shot." The exercise participants used laser integrated rifles and systems to simulate actual live fire. Romeo said he was able to use Land Warrior to locate his squad leader's position on the drop zone and call for help. "I was able to talk to my squad leader and bring him into my position," he said. "When he did come over the hill, I knew it was him and not the enemy." Killing sniper at 300 meters But before help could arrive, Sgt. Chad Leasure took advantage of the thermal weapons sight mounted on his M-4 carbine to clearly ferret out the sniper. He then "killed" the sniper at a distance of 300 meters - a feat he said would have been impossible against a well-concealed sniper without Land Warrior. "There is no way I would have been able to engage him at that distance," Leasure said. "We had six guys with us. I think we would have all died if we had tried to take out a sniper at that distance across an open field." Leasure then continued his suppressive fire, until Romeo and a fellow soldier overtook the sniper's spotter. Throughout the exercise, the battalion commander said he was impressed at how the Land Warrior system took the guesswork out of land navigation. That meant the platoon could cover more ground faster than they normally would. "It is a revolutionary change," said Lt. Col. Michael Garrett. "Now you have an infantryman who not only knows where he is at all times, but he also knows where his buddies are to the left and right." Despite all the rave reviews, soldiers also are quick to point out that the system is far from perfect. One of the main shortcomings in the $135 million program is the radio system - unreliable at distances beyond 200 meters depending on the terrain. "You would think with the amount of money they spent on this thing, you would be able to talk at greater distances," platoon sergeant Stephens sa
