The resounding grumbling from Soldiers was finally heard loud and clear by officials at PEO Soldier who saw the budget writing on the wall and decided on a radical redesign of what was once Land Warrior.
In a story to run tomorrow morning on Military.com we report:
The Army has abandoned its decades-long effort to pack nearly 20 pounds of batteries, computer processors and displays on future Soldiers in favor of a simpler solution that uses technology already in many Joes’ pockets.
Officials with the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based PEO Soldier told reporters Oct. 6 that they had decided to configure the so-called “Nett Warrior” system to use a commercially-available smart phone plugged into a secure tactical radio.
“There’s significant cost and weight savings in this approach,” said Nett Warrior deputy program manager Bill Brower. “We took out about 70 percent of the weight” from the original system.
Don’t say we didn’t tell you so…
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
uh…duh.
I dont think PEO will get many new things in coming years Army will get hit hardest by the cuts. I pads made for other reasons would be far more sufficient than that clunky and bulky item. Lose the grey crap camo too.
A very reasonable decision!
70% of the weight…!?!? jeesh what have they been doing?
Part of the price of "secure" systems.
Keep in mind what is shown inthe picture is the SL below package. PL and above also have an iPad sized tablet.
I'm all for cutting wieght but don't be fooled. This system isn't compatible with any other Army command and control software (neither was land warrior). It can't call for arty (except company mortars), it can't interact with Army wide automated systems that keep track of troop locations or that mounted units use for planning. As it sits NOW this is a stovepipe dismounted infantry system. It ONLY talk with itself.
When I spoke with PEO reps at the Maneuver conf they were very specific to say that integration into Army wide systems is someone else's job.
If I was a Squad Leader I'd rather just roll with this thing and let mother army keep their FBCB2…never used that thing, it was just an extra television screen getting in the way of my falcon view!
Having been both light and mech I can see your point from the light perspective. Absolutely essential for the mounted force and large scale manuever when you have more than a company out and about.
BTW, SL's really don't need to be on FBCB2. PL and above do.
Point taken, certainly a difference of need and perspective between SL/PL/CO/ect…
Gotta start somewhere.
True
I take it this won't have the helmet mounted display? Too bad, some form of HUD is, IMHO, very important so that soldiers can view data while still keeping an eye on what they're doing instead of looking down.
Its called a Helmet Mounted Display not HUD. Big difference is you can't see through the HMD. Having worn the system I did not like the HMD. You lost half your vision of the battlefield and awareness of what was going on.
There is technology out there that uses a lens that you can see through (like a fighter pilot's HUD) vs. a mini computer screen. When I spoke with the PEO rep at the Maneuver conference he stated they were not throwing the HMD away and were open to other approaches. He observed some soldiers liked it. Others preferred a phone on their wrist vs. one on their chest like pictured. Seems the system is too immature yet to make a decision which way to go and are backing all three approaches until they get some more feedback from the field..
Correction noted. I wonder if a "flexible" approach could be used in the configuration of the new Nett Warrior, with a core smartphone based system that can be configured to be worn on the chest, arm, or plugged into a visor display. On that note, if possible I believe that a transparent visor style display would be the most appropriate for the stated visibility issues.
AN/PVS 21 LPNVG allows information to be displayed on a see through “screen”. Of course this isn’t an optimal solution for every situation, but the technology is right there.
C'mon Medic. The PVS21 "HUD" is limited. It's even bulkier than the HMD. Its coming but the technology isn't THERE. Even the obsolete LW HMD can pump more and better images than the PVS21.
As we both know the PVS21s have their downsides (don't want to get into capabilities) and aren't being fielded to everyone. 15's still seem to be the most common/preferred.
It's not THAT easy.
PVS15′s aren’t the most common. They are however some of the most preferred by special operations. PVS 14′s are are almost always issued to conventional troops with some of the unlucky soldiers getting PVS 7′s. Anyways that a whole other discussion.
Rod I didn’t say that it would be a good idea to use the LPNVG as a HMD. I only said that it can be used in that capacity in the absence of another solution with limited capabilities. My comment on the tech being right there means that I believe its on the edge of being taken to another level of use. The ocular display for the 21′s IS see-through and CAN display information. With that, it wouldn’t take much more to develop into a goggles, eye pro, or flip down with all electronics stored in the helmet somewhere. The PVS 21′s ARE NOT the answer for an HMD, but rather an example of a technology that’s begging for development.
It's being worked on. Vuzix has some pretty nice technology in the pipe. We wrote about it a couple months ago.
I'm familiar with the technology and yes its being worked on. Was using them in the Battlelab at Ft. Benning back in 04'-'05 doing Future Force Warrior studies. Unfortunately six years later the same problems exist for see through HMD/HUD (e.g. visibility in sunlight, limited colors, detail). We haven't even gotten to the durability issues. So yes, its being worked on.
Like I've said in other articles. I love technology but often times developers/scientists and program managers portray the technology as farther along than it actually is. We should always step back and ask the hard questions objectively vs. letting the hype drive the train.
Eventually Nett Warrior will be fielded, HMD/HUDs will be commonplace and exoskeletons won't be so special. Won't happen in the near future (1-2 yrs). Yes we'll field test Nett Warrior in that time but I wouldn't expect a full fielding for 3-5 years. Bet "see through" HMDs won't be adopted in that window.
Indeed, a "bit by bit" development plan seems very prudent right now. Spin things out that are ready and add more advanced features over the years.
The coolest technology I saw was a system that beamed the information directly on your retina. To the individual it seemed like words/pictures/graphics were suspended in air in front of you. Imagine following a "virtual yellow brick road" to the objective? Now THAT's cool!
Its called "enhanced or augmented reality". The most advanced versions were being applied to pilot tasks but that was 5=6 yrs ago..
Reality+! That is pretty cool!
major.rod – As an Infantryman, and an IT Specialist for the last 15 years I have noticed attempts to adapt tech to combat ops fail, over and over. Seems like gizmos fall from the top and roll down to us poor self propelled sandbags who wonder why we have to sign and carry this junk. Stick to K.I.S.S. and work from the bottom up, I could talk for hours about things I wish we had, and things I wish would spontaniously asplode.
Here’s the reality of the situation. All previous “future warrior” programs were destined to fail! The fact is, the technology for those programs to succeed was not available at the time of conception. Huge batteries and computers weighed too much to be practical. The operating system was overly complicated as well, often times requiring the end user to scroll through multiple menus to do simple tasks. The display was terrible. What you saw was no better than a map and a pencil.
Fastforward to the present day and we find the technology we’ve been striving for. Smart phones and tablets are small, compact, and lightweight. Team leaders can use a tablet while shooters can use handheld devices easily accessed by strapping them to the wrist. Instead of maps, soldiers can see real time satellite imagery of the battle field and mark friendly and enemy positions for other team members to see in real time. They have the ability to mark locations for close air support in seconds and relay the information to pilots up above. Snipers can range targets simply by using an app that allows them to touch their position on the screen and then touch the enemies position and get distance, again in seconds. They can quickly switch over to a ballistic solver and get a solution to take precision shots. The list goes on and on.
Why the Army wanted a system that was crazy complicated is beyond me. Civilians, once again, have known the benefits of a product before the Army could ever get something off the ground. Let’s hope the smart phone projects “go through” soon, so that our warfighter can come home alive.
Land Warrior was heavy. That alone killed its fielding but the view was much better than what you've described. I've personally seen and used five color US Maps, UAV footage, aerial/satelitte photography, color photos and video. Not HD quality but very useable. I'd also agree software wasn't the best but made huge strides in the three yrs I had access to the system and continued to improve with field feedback. (Don't most things?)
Nett Warrior will be more successful. It is not anywhere near as capable as you describe. NW hasn't even seen a combat environment. LW has TWICE. You're a bit premature commenting on formats and reports until they've been used a time or two (BTW, the formats are coming out of the same sources as LW, different format of course). Also NW can't communicate today w/UAVs, aircraft etc. It can't even share the intel coming in from FBCB2 or import graphics from Falcon View without some wirehead doing his magic.
LW was state of the art in the late 90's-2008. Smart phones and iPads are great. They rely on cell towers that don't exist in combat zones and are vulnerable to jamming. Until the new squad radio and working dynamic networking software was created, smartphones and iPads weren't going to work in the Afghan mountains or away from an Iraqi cell tower. That took some time. That and more are why LW survived as long as it did.
Civilian tech is very cool. It doesn't always translate well to the military environment without some serious tweaking. Can you imagine wearing the plastics and nylon outdoorsmen wear with no fear of it melting into their skin?
I beginning to think that you feel that I’m an idiot when it comes to this stuff Major.rod ;) I understand the shortcoming of not having a network. I wouldn’t want to use an open network if it existed anyway. Smart phones are not the way to go either, its just the words I used so everyone would understand what I was describing. I should have said “smart phone like device” or End User Device, since that’s what it will be called, at least for now.
I disagree about the capability. Everything I mentioned can be used in the manner i described, with the exception of the CAS app, so long as a secure mobile network is in place. I understand it will take some tweaking and I figured everyone would understand that too when reading my comment. With that being said, the civilian apps that have already been developed have already been used in the capacity I described in my comments. I know because I’ve used them in that way, again with exception of communicating with aerial assets. I think we’re further along than you think. It just takes a creative look at those programs that have been developed for other uses.
I'm an Infantryman and a IT Specialist so you would think I'd be supportive of all kinds of shiny tech in the field. But the truth is the more crap BA sends down to the 11B the more they start to reley on the tech for "Situational Awareness". A good GPS is a godsend, NVGs are the bomb, ITR and throat mics = awesome, but K.I.S.S. applies. And I'm glad to see Land Warrior / NETT Warrior about the size of an iPhone and ICOM. It used to be beans&bullets now it's beans, bullets and batteries.
No, don't think you're an idiot :). Maybe it's the commo medium but write comments like "mark friendly and enemy positions for other team members to see in real time…. mak locations for close air support in seconds and relay the information to pilots up above." Then didn't caveat with "in the future comment, not tablet/smart phone sized or tweaking is required". While I undertsand the capabilities of FBCB2 (vehicle only) TODAY and some of the smaller UAV viewing capabilities fielded (not mobile for predator or larger size UAVs), the reader may not. Many come here to learn what's the latest and greatest. We don't want them to walk away thinking things are easier than they are, do we? That's what Hollywood is for.
I also wanted to address development and how new tech isn't always ready for the big time. Seems too many people (some in uniform) think those doing "developing" are all idiots or worse. Some programs are poorly managed, not LW. I happened to know the LW guys and the NCOs involved in the program and was tasked to evaluate it for the Infantry. Smart phone tech really wasn't ready until '05. Three years later we were looking at NW. Not bad considering the tech hurdles that have to be made. Look at the turtleback LW to the laptop size it went to 3-5 years later.
SFMedic, I value your experience and opinion, just have to differentiate between the two. Its likely those that have neither read our back and forth to form an opinion. I think your experience would have had a lot of weight in the zip tie like tourniquet story a week or so back. Look forward to reading more of your input. Don't ever take my disagreement as a personal shot. Thanks for your service.
I didn’t take it as a personal shot. I just felt like you didn’t understand what I was trying to say. With that in mind, you seem to know a lot more than me when it comes to the tech side of the house. I was just making light when I said you must think I’m an idiot. I don’t really think that you feel that way (although I wouldn’t blame you if you did). I admit that my expertise lies in Tactical Medicine, Light Weapons & Tactics, and RDAT&E. I do have opinions on other subjects too, and I know me and you won’t always see eye to eye. That’s a good thing though. I enjoy having intelligent discussion or debate with you on kitup and I hope the dialogue continues.
I value your opinion and experience as well, and I also hope you don’t think I’m ever trying to be condescending or disrespectful. Thanks for information you bring to the table, and I’m looking forward to reading more from you.
Ok FormerSF Medic, I am sorry I have been out for a while (1986). If its not OPSEC what is RDAT&E
Medic – We're good.
RDAT&E = Research, Development, Acquisition and Testing & Evaluation. My background in this area applied primarily to weapons, weapons accessories, tactical medicine, clothing/uniforms, and ammunition & ballistics. Not really Nett Warrior.
Reflex – Don't get me wrong. The capability for the infantry and his leaders to know where he and everyone is on the ground. For every soldier to have a radio and comms with his buddy is significant and long overdue considering what is possible. Tie this in with software that can analyze dead space, share UAV feeds and graphics and we'd really increase the efficiency of the ground pounder.
We were looking at this almost ten years ago. The follow on discussions will ask if this tech increases the defensive/offensive frontage of infantry units or can troop numbers be reduced. When we were having the discussions in the '03 – '05 time frame it was scary that so many forgot the man intensive issues like medevac, continuos ops, casualties and enemy attempts to defeat our tech.
Professionals like us should always be wary of what we get and at what price. Forgive me. The bean counters made me paranoid but that doesn't men they aren't out to get us. :)