Is Land Warrior Feasible?

Airborne Cadet · November 10, 2002, 05:38 PM

Just saw a history channel special on the new Land Warrior system being developed by the Army. It has several features that are supposed to enhance the soldiers ability to fight and survive. Some key features that I like are being able to put a laser on a target and have the coordinates automatically relayed to artillery support instead of having to plot an 8 digits and call it in. Also, being able to point the OICW weapon around a corner and shoot without having to expose more than the weapon itself is very attractive. The programmable HE rounds could also come in handy for hitting an enemy in defilade. On the flip side of the coin, there are some aspects that make me wary. First, the system is electronic and battery powered and we all know what that means. It also seems that having to manipulate the electronics would take the soldiers head out of the fight, but this may not be an issue if the soldier trains enough with the system. Second, I don't know if I want my commander to be able to see everything i see via video and control the situation. If they are suppose to be controlling what's going on at the strategic and operational levels, why do they need to see what's happening at the tactical level? Since i'm in ROTC and about to be commissioned, this is very well something that i could be using in the next 5 or 6 years if the Army decides to implement the program. Also, do you think this technology will trickle down to LE like other technology and methods?

[email protected] · November 10, 2002, 05:53 PM

The military has always been the predominate driving force behind major technology. Land Warrior is just the next extension in soldier development.

Don't mistake the new technology though for a replacement of the soldier himself. In the end, it's always going to come down to the grunt with his rifle to take and hold the battlefield, but the technology certainly can make his job easier.

If for nothing else, the lessons learned and equipment developed from the Land Warrior system needs to be implemented just for the communications benefits. Intra-squad communications is extremely poor - a hardened, secure comm net is well within our capabilities at this point.

Really, Land Warrior is just a development of what we already have on the shelf right now. The question is, how long will it take to make it simple, soldier proof

and cost effective to deploy. For the price of one OICW, we could give every troopie an M4 with M203, GPS, Motorola radio, PVS 17, etc. Land Warrior just brings all of it together.

I'm also impressed by the AAR's I've ready of the Land Warrior in action, especially the ones where they took tech-challenged troops and issued them this gear. Eye opening to say the least.

Kevin

Blackhawk · November 10, 2002, 06:14 PM

I saw that some time ago. It sounds good and promising, but doesn't the system weigh about 14 pounds?

As I recall, it's best suited for urban warfare where there isn't a lot of foliage or forest. A lifetime's use of MKI eyeballs isn't going to be easy to adapt to a screen or other optical display gadget. Humans have a tremendous ability to "see" movement using the standard issue eyeballs that doesn't translate at all through an electronic device.

A real problem in actual combat is to simply get soldiers to fire their rifles. The more complicated equipment is, the more reluctant they are to use it in close combat. Using gizmos from stand off distances is a whole different puppy from being within sight and range of the enemy.

The ruggedness of the LW is also going to be of great concern. Can it stand being dropped 10 feet onto hard surfaces repeatedly and still work? Well, how likely is THAT? Measure the bed height of a deuce-and-a-half, then imagine an average soldier standing on it getting ready for a quick dismount under fire. How likely? Very likely.

All in all, the weight, complexity, and fragility make me think the LW isn't going to be a big deal.

Look at the Israellis trapping Yassir. "We're getting fire from those buildings. Shall we deploy the LW troops?" "Nah, bring up the tanks and bulldozers."

The simplest way is usually the best way, and if we're fighting on the other guy's turf, what do we care about knocking down a few buildings...?

As "proof-of-concept" technology, the LW has a lot to contribute, but I doubt that it will be popular in combat units as it exists now.

As for spin off technology getting down to LE, who knows, and where's the need?

Gomez · November 11, 2002, 10:42 PM

Everytime I think about the Land Warrior system, I'm reminded of all the "progress" that I saw while I was in the Army. First we had LBE with two mag pouches, two canteens, two field dressings, a compass, an e-tool (Bn SOP),and a bayonet. Most of us added a buttpack and another mag pouch to the rig. We'd have one or two sets of NVGs per squad. Then, since we were "light infantry", they started making all kinds of "highspeed" gear for us. First we got the PRC-126s, then we got GPSs, then we got Melios, and on and on. We got so much "highspeed, lightweight" gear that our loads went up 15 pounds and my belt wasn't big enough for all the gadgets.

Land Warrior, as a concept, is neat, but you get to a point where to much is being invested in gadgets and not enough in the men.

tgace · November 12, 2002, 05:16 PM

I was an MP so I had a HMMWV to haul all my gear in....I think that all this high tech stuff may work for spec-ops and short term operations. 11B out in the field in combat, for months on end, hauling all that junk on patrol and road marches, well lets just say I think a lot of "field losses" would occur to lighten the load.

November 10, 2002, 05:38 PM	#1
Airborne Cadet Member Join Date: October 14, 2002 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 19	Is Land Warrior Feasible? Just saw a history channel special on the new Land Warrior system being developed by the Army. It has several features that are supposed to enhance the soldiers ability to fight and survive. Some key features that I like are being able to put a laser on a target and have the coordinates automatically relayed to artillery support instead of having to plot an 8 digits and call it in. Also, being able to point the OICW weapon around a corner and shoot without having to expose more than the weapon itself is very attractive. The programmable HE rounds could also come in handy for hitting an enemy in defilade. On the flip side of the coin, there are some aspects that make me wary. First, the system is electronic and battery powered and we all know what that means. It also seems that having to manipulate the electronics would take the soldiers head out of the fight, but this may not be an issue if the soldier trains enough with the system. Second, I don't know if I want my commander to be able to see everything i see via video and control the situation. If they are suppose to be controlling what's going on at the strategic and operational levels, why do they need to see what's happening at the tactical level? Since i'm in ROTC and about to be commissioned, this is very well something that i could be using in the next 5 or 6 years if the Army decides to implement the program. Also, do you think this technology will trickle down to LE like other technology and methods?

November 10, 2002, 05:53 PM	#2
[email protected] Wise Guy Join Date: October 10, 1998 Posts: 665	The military has always been the predominate driving force behind major technology. Land Warrior is just the next extension in soldier development. Don't mistake the new technology though for a replacement of the soldier himself. In the end, it's always going to come down to the grunt with his rifle to take and hold the battlefield, but the technology certainly can make his job easier. If for nothing else, the lessons learned and equipment developed from the Land Warrior system needs to be implemented just for the communications benefits. Intra-squad communications is extremely poor - a hardened, secure comm net is well within our capabilities at this point. Really, Land Warrior is just a development of what we already have on the shelf right now. The question is, how long will it take to make it simple, soldier proof and cost effective to deploy. For the price of one OICW, we could give every troopie an M4 with M203, GPS, Motorola radio, PVS 17, etc. Land Warrior just brings all of it together. I'm also impressed by the AAR's I've ready of the Land Warrior in action, especially the ones where they took tech-challenged troops and issued them this gear. Eye opening to say the least. Kevin __________________ Kevin Jon Schlossberg Owner, BladeForums.com www.bladeforums.com

November 11, 2002, 10:42 PM	#4
Gomez Senior Member Join Date: May 26, 2002 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 297	Everytime I think about the Land Warrior system, I'm reminded of all the "progress" that I saw while I was in the Army. First we had LBE with two mag pouches, two canteens, two field dressings, a compass, an e-tool (Bn SOP),and a bayonet. Most of us added a buttpack and another mag pouch to the rig. We'd have one or two sets of NVGs per squad. Then, since we were "light infantry", they started making all kinds of "highspeed" gear for us. First we got the PRC-126s, then we got GPSs, then we got Melios, and on and on. We got so much "highspeed, lightweight" gear that our loads went up 15 pounds and my belt wasn't big enough for all the gadgets. Land Warrior, as a concept, is neat, but you get to a point where to much is being invested in gadgets and not enough in the men. __________________ "Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." --Kruger & Dunning

November 12, 2002, 05:16 PM	#5
tgace Member Join Date: November 11, 2002 Location: WNY Posts: 19	I was an MP so I had a HMMWV to haul all my gear in....I think that all this high tech stuff may work for spec-ops and short term operations. 11B out in the field in combat, for months on end, hauling all that junk on patrol and road marches, well lets just say I think a lot of "field losses" would occur to lighten the load. __________________ You must concentrate upon and consecrate yourself wholly to each day, as though a fire were raging in your hair. - Taisen Deshimaru http://tgace.wordpress.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

November 10, 2002, 06:14 PM	#3
Blackhawk Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2001 Posts: 5,040	I saw that some time ago. It sounds good and promising, but doesn't the system weigh about 14 pounds? As I recall, it's best suited for urban warfare where there isn't a lot of foliage or forest. A lifetime's use of MKI eyeballs isn't going to be easy to adapt to a screen or other optical display gadget. Humans have a tremendous ability to "see" movement using the standard issue eyeballs that doesn't translate at all through an electronic device. A real problem in actual combat is to simply get soldiers to fire their rifles. The more complicated equipment is, the more reluctant they are to use it in close combat. Using gizmos from stand off distances is a whole different puppy from being within sight and range of the enemy. The ruggedness of the LW is also going to be of great concern. Can it stand being dropped 10 feet onto hard surfaces repeatedly and still work? Well, how likely is THAT? Measure the bed height of a deuce-and-a-half, then imagine an average soldier standing on it getting ready for a quick dismount under fire. How likely? Very likely. All in all, the weight, complexity, and fragility make me think the LW isn't going to be a big deal. Look at the Israellis trapping Yassir. "We're getting fire from those buildings. Shall we deploy the LW troops?" "Nah, bring up the tanks and bulldozers." The simplest way is usually the best way, and if we're fighting on the other guy's turf, what do we care about knocking down a few buildings...? As "proof-of-concept" technology, the LW has a lot to contribute, but I doubt that it will be popular in combat units as it exists now. As for spin off technology getting down to LE, who knows, and where's the need?