April 22, 2007:

The U.S. Army is still trying to figure out what to do with a lot of
new technologies developed for its Land Warrior program. That was an
effort to enhance infantry performance with a lot of technology that was
never ready for prime time (like wearable computers). Although the Land
Warrior program is dead, the general concept lives on with new stuff the
combat troops are using. The problem with Land Warrior was that is tried
to be revolutionary, while the troops really wanted evolutionary items.
Although the army has halted work on Land Warrior, it is sending some
of the equipment to Iraq, to see how well it performs in combat. The
current Land Warrior gear includes a wearable computer/GPS/radio
combination, plus improvements in body armor and uniform design. Troops
who tested Land Warrior in the U.S. found it too much hassle, and not
enough benefit.



The original, 1990s, Land Warrior concept was a lot more ambitious.
Revolutionary, so to speak. But that version had a science fiction air
about it, and was not expected to appear for two decades or more. The
brass eventually got more realistic, especially after September 11,
2001. That, plus the unexpectedly rapid appearance of new computer and
communications technologies, caused them to reduce the weight and
complexity of the original Land Warrior design. At the same time, this
made it possible for the first version of Land Warrior to undergo field
testing much sooner and, even though that resulted in the cancellation
of Land Warrior, many of the individual components will continue to be
developed. Eventually the troops will have wearable computers, wi-fi
capability, and all manner of neat stuff. Eventually.



Late last year a battalion of infantry tested the current Land Warrior
gear. Many of the troops involved were combat veterans, and their
opinions indicated that some of the stuff was worth carrying around the
battlefield, and some wasn't. Meanwhile, the army has been getting new
gear to Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as it passed muster with the
troops, thereby building an alternative "Land Warrior ensemble" one
piece at a time. But two major Land Warrior items, the wearable
computer (with the eyepiece display) and GPS positioning, were not ready
for the combat zone. Too slow and too fragile. The 2006 tests also
discovered some communications problems. This was not unexpected, but
the Land Warrior system depends on continuous communications to provide
accurate position information for all the networked troops, and their
commanders.



What the field tests tried to prove was whether the usual imperfect
communications, which have long been common in combat, before and after
radio was introduced, render Land Warrior not-worth-the-effort. This is
where using combat veterans was so important. Troops who have not been
in combat have to guess if certain test conditions would result in a
battlefield disaster, or just an annoyance, especially in light of the
potential advantages from using Land Warrior. While some of the gear was
useful, the overall ensemble was not, which is what killed Land Warrior.



While Land Warrior is dead, it's cousin, Mounted Warrior, is not. The
Stryker vehicles are using a partial set of the Mounted Warrior
ensemble, a version of Land Warrior for the crews of armored vehicles.
The troops liked all these new electronic gadgets a lot. just as
commanders took to Blue Force Tracker in 2003. In effect, the first beta
of Mounted Warrior was installed in the Stryker vehicles headed for Iraq
in 2005. That gear worked well, and the troops were enthusiastic about
using a vehicle that was booted, rather than simply started. The main
idea with this new gear was to provide the troops with superior
"situational awareness." That's a fancy term for having a good sense of
where you are. The Stryker troops always knew where they were, by
looking at a computer screen. There, a GPS placed the vehicle on a
detailed map of the area.



Over half a century of studies has resulted in knowledge of what an
infantryman needs to be more effective. They need to know where they
are, quickly. Having a poor idea of where you are proved to be one of
the main shortcomings of armored vehicles. While infantrymen can just
look around, armored crews tend to be cut off from this while inside
their vehicle. The crews are even more easily disoriented. When the
shooting starts, even the commander, instead of standing up with his
head outside the turret, ducks back inside to stay alive. Infantry
aren't much better off. Although they can see their surroundings, they
are often crouching behind something. When getting shot at, standing up
to look around is not much of an option.



But the infantry are often not much in need of a computer to tell them
where they are. In Iraq, much of the infantry are doing SWAT type
operations. These are run fast, with most of the troops in close
proximity to each other. The wearable computer and its GPS driven map
proved useless, mainly because it took the system over a minute to
update the map. Even the personal radio is counterproductive for most
troops. On patrols the GPS and radios can come in handy. But there are
already personal radios, and various models of GPS, available for that.
Land Warrior tried to make the technology do what it was not yet capable
of, to perform a function the troops didn't particularly need.



Meanwhile in Iraq, infantry officers and NCOs, equipped with PDAs, have
found the map/GPS combo a tremendous aid to getting around, and getting
the job done. The troops also buy commercial gear, a piece at a time, to
take care of their Land Warrior type needs. Thus "son of Land Warrior"
is already showing up in combat, piece by piece. And this is changing
the way troops fight. Everyone is now able to move around more quickly,
confidently and effectively. This model has already been demonstrated
with the Stryker units. Captured enemy gunmen often complained of how
the Strykers came out of nowhere, and skillfully maneuvered to surround
and destroy them. "It wasn't fair," some of the enemy complained. This
was often done at night, with no lights (using night vision gear.) When
you have infantry using Land Warrior gear to do the same thing on foot,
you demoralize the enemy. Hostile Iraqis already attribute all manner of
science fiction type capabilities to American troops. But with Son of
Land Warrior, the bar will have to be raised on what's science fiction,
and what is just regular issue gear. This is typical of what happens in
wartime, where the demand for better weapons and equipment, and a
realistic place to test it, greatly accelerates the development and
deployment of the new stuff.



What the army R&D brass have a hard time accepting is the fact that the
troops know what they need. As you read this, thousands of American
infantrymen are "evolving" new equipment in combat. It's usually
something they hacked together from commercial gadgets. But the army
still prefers to have people in a lab, or at least outside of a combat
zone, come up with revolutionary new equipment, which the troops will
somehow embrace. The lab rats never seem to notice that their
revolutions all seem to encounter a lot of resistance from the troops,
because the ideas were not well enough tested by the troops. You can't
ignore reality, especially in wartime.

It seems to me, that all these contraptions are being created by those
who sit in an office and come up with new toys for GI Joe.

Updating air craft and water fareing ships is much more conceivable,
however, on the ground forces do not, can not, always benefit from these
innovations. If all war was fought only from the air, from the water,
I would consider many of these inventions most accomodating. Ground
warfare is much different.

Think about this for just one second. When we learn math in school we
all begin the same old fashioned way. 1 + 1 etc. The purpose of the
calculator was to allow for quick and accurate lower level calculation
to get to the more advanced fundamentals. Now we have scientific
calculators that can get us even the more advanced calculations, AND all
these calculators are allowed IN SCHOOL. How long had the government
been complaining that we are not producing enough math engineers in this
country????

Now, take ground level troups, outfit them with high level computer
based equipment. Train them in the use of this equipment and send them
out. What happems when that first strike comes and wipes out that
communication?

So the question is, do we spend 1 to 4 years in basic training of our
troops, so they can be well trained in the use and repair of this
equipment, AS WELL, as training in the old fashioned, hold on to your
maps, your ground phone your battle gear, know how to use them all, and
fly by your witts.

During WWII, it was a well known fact among the overseas divisions that
the first vehicles, the first men to be "hit" were the ones with the big
red cross. The first thing these guys did was paint the trucks with
cameflouge, and the first battle ground the guys were sent into, they
switched their helmut with the big red + with a fallen soldier.

The point, of that is, in war soldiers do whatever is necessary to
protect THEIR lives first. This makes sence as it means they will
protect the poeple on which they depent for their lives as part of that
first scenerio. But doesn't that also mean they they will see extra
gear, that weighs them down, that may or may not work in any given
senerio as dead weight?

Those "things" the technological advances that have been developed in
times of war are always those advances that that we have benefited most
from as a society, after the war, after the government, views the
technology as something less than a secret war weapon.

I think there are advances that can be made, technologically, however,
the past shows that when this technology development ALWAYS, becomes
most brilliant, most effective, AFTER a war, when it is revised for
public use. So why don't we let public companies that have the minds to
develop these products do so, and let the government bid on the best
ones.

what they really want is a killer robot...