# Land Warrior



## cagomez (4 Mar 2002)

Saw this article in the Maple Leaf regarding the US Land Warrior Program. Not sure how I feel about this one. On one had it theoretically can enhance nav, coms, and survivability, On the other it totatally overcomplicates things, has the potential to become a logistical nightmare, and can be way too buggy.  We have enough teething problems getting new uniforms to the troops. Maybe we should concentrate on improving the basic necessities (Like air transport, new tanks, and a better rifle sight) before going light speed into the future. 

 http://www.dnd.ca/menu/maple/vol_5/vol5_08/vol5_8army.pdf


----------



## BillP (4 Mar 2002)

It seems to have some uses, especially in a FIBUA-MOUT environment, however research should be spent on lightening/improving  the soldiers‘ burden, moreso than complicating it! Too much emphasis is being placed on tech to make one a better soldier, as opposed to quality training, and experience. I figure the labrats see some benefit into turning the ground soldier into a miniaturized coyote surveillance system. If they do go through with this, say in the next decade, then the new LBV that comes out shoud have dedicated battery pouches!
"Expended magazine, and Low Battery" 2 dilemmas that will be faced by soldiers of the future!


----------



## Marauder (4 Mar 2002)

Yeah, another fourty or fifty pounds of lightweight gear to haul around on foot. Welcome to the light infantry lads! LOL Better the Americans than me, quoth I.   

And think of how pissed off you are when you comp crashes during an online chat.... now imagine how carpetchomping insane you would be when your CPU-driven rifle crashes in the middle of a firefight. Bad freakin karma. Gimme a low tech C7 any day o‘ the week.

And to paraphrase a SF Warrant Officer I have had the privledge of conversing with online from time to time..... While the new high tech soldier is fiddling around with his NavCommoLowlightThermalInfared computer, any old stupid caveman can sneak up behind him and whack him with his stone age club.


----------



## Disturbance (6 Mar 2002)

I did a 20page research paper on the Land Warrior in university. The weight is all in the batteries. Right now they dont last long but new ones are coming out. I think the data that is fed into the visor is a bit much. You will be able to plot friendly and enemy positions on the map and that will be displayed into everyones eye (kinda like the end of Rainbow Six) and I imagine people will become to focused on looking at the map instead of searching the ground for the enemy that hasnt been seen yet, and you know how that would end. If the sight on the rifle could grow smaller it wouldnt be that bad of tool for MOUT. I also dont think EVERY soldier needs the capability of the rangefinder and calling in artillery.  Another lot of the weight is in the new body armor as well (I dont know how it compares to our new stuff). Also EVERY soldier having a radio could cause lots of confusion, but the 2ic and 1ic could definately use one, the auto RRB is a nice feature to. Bah I forget most of what I learned so this probably doesnt make sense.


----------



## enfield (7 Mar 2002)

There‘s obviously the weight issue. 
Also, I don‘t see how an individual soldier can manage that much information and sensory input. Having received some training on the new TCCCS system, that looks complictaed enough.

Eventually, things will change in this direction, but I suspect the soldier in 2050 will be different than whta the labrats say, and will probably be surprisingly like a soldier today.

The biggest characteristic of the infantry is how eternal the infantryman is.


----------



## rceme_rat (8 Mar 2002)

And then there is the int value of capturing someone with this sort of comms ability -- can it be manipulated by inputting false data, can it be exploited by analyzing past data transfers (to/from the soldier), can it be used to receive current data in real-time?  

Maybe this one is best as a platoon-level resource and not as indiv soldier basic kit!


----------



## Infanteer (8 Mar 2002)

I heard one of the major pitfalls of this sort of system was registering targets into the network.  If all ten troops on the ground observed 1 tank and registered it, than the system would show 10 tanks.  You could see how quick bad information could turn this thing into a liability.


----------

