5 ms·

As a former armor officer, I worry that integrating tech in the warrior kit is a complacency risk; not a problem, just a risk. For example, tank platoons rely h

As a former armor officer, I worry that integrating tech in the warrior kit is a complacency risk; not a problem, just a risk. For example, tank platoons rely heavily on communication devices, and when those fail, I believe teams have not trained hard enough on the analog (hand and arm signals, flagging, IR signaling, etc.). If you power communication and AR from a cable, does the soldier now carry battery backups? Does the soldier now train to two levels of contingency: digital, radio, physical? The soldiers kit is heavy enough and we barely train to one contingency so the ROI here is really important—and I don’t mean money.

wjmao88 6y ago
This is more of a risk-reward trade off that comes with anything that is more performant but more sophisticated. The same can be said about guns, but obviously the reward of having a gun is vastly greater than the risk of it malfunctioning.
- craftinator 6y ago
  But on this same point, the military favors very simple firearms for good reason: they don't malfunction nearly as often, and are robust enough to survive very harsh conditions without much change in firing characteristics. A good analogy is to website availability: if you run a personal blog, it doesn't matter if your uptime is ~100% or 80%. If you run a remote monitoring site for a power grid however... You don't gain anything if you lose reliability. See the F-35 JST for a good case in point.
  - rjr8r83ueue 6y ago
    What makes you think the military favors simple firearms? American forces use small arms that require a fairly high degree of service compared to alternatives like the ak-47/akm variants. It's not a problem because the maintenance requirements can be adequately accomplished by a single disciplined soldier and the performance gains over simpler alternatives are substantial.
    - craftinator 6y ago
      Because I've used them. The most complicated firearm the average grunt will use is an M249, which has fewer moving parts than many handguns. Production inertia and poor accuracy keep the AK series out of the US armed forces, along with a preference to 5.56 over 7.62. Basic maintenance for an M16 is nearly identical for an AK-47, the M16 is lighter and has smaller/lighter ammunition, and has better mid-range and long-range accuracy. So let's say that there is a very slow curve to complexity vs convenience up to a certain point. But we have been using the M16 since the 60's; plenty of newer, more complex rifles have come out in that time, many with better range, accuracy, stopping power, cyclic rate, etc... But we haven't moved away from a simple, fairly reliable rifle.
mr_overalls 6y ago
Did the widespread adoption of GPS in the military cause a degradation in orienteering & map-reading skills?
- galacticaactual 6y ago
  Yes.
- mjlee 6y ago
  Absolutely. As a concrete example, the US Navy stopped teaching celestial navigation and have only recently begun to teach it again. They now have a skill gap of mid-seniority navigators who have no astro-nav experience and will struggle under GPS denial.
  - moftz 6y ago
    How many people on the boat do you need that know celestial navigation? Sounds like something you could have someone go to school for to specialize in and then make sure you've got at least one on every boat rather than make everyone learn. We've got plenty of ways to defeat jamming, the newest block of GPS satellites have ways to increase signal power in certain areas and anti-radiation missiles can blow up a jammer. GPS only comes from space so it's pretty easy to find someone on the ground messing with it. We also have things like star trackers that are used on satellites to determine position without GPS that could easily be implemented on a boat if not already on there. These systems could be hardened against EMPs and only brought out in case of absolute emergency. I don't see the need of every navigator having their own sextant.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      How many people on the boat do you need that know celestial navigation? Easy. The same number that know how to use a GPS. Your one guy may be the first casualty. We've got plenty of ways to defeat jamming, the newest block of GPS satellites have ways to increase signal power in certain areas and anti-radiation missiles can blow up a jammer. What do you do when your enemy dumps a load of sand in orbit?
nimbius 6y ago
As former enlisted 91A, dont worry about it! I remember being used to putting up with all kinds of absolutely shit ideas from command and this ones no different. We didnt even have functioning body and vehicle armor in the last conflict. Spare parts took months to get if they ever showed up at all. Batteries were either left in the sun in crates until they popped, quit charging after a week or so due to the heat, or the chargers broke down. So if ive got a buddy who needs wiring for the antenna array on the back of an HMMV or if im short on power cables for something, the first thing im going to do is find a few legs who hate their vests. those little connectors with the boots on them look real sturdy too, and im sure those cables wont be missed by guys who havent had the ammunition or the battery packs to fire those space age senator kickbacks for months. Start improving the army at the parts of it that arent sexy. Supply chain, and the VA system.
sandworm101 6y ago
>> For example, tank platoons rely heavily on communication devices, and when those fail, I believe teams have not trained hard enough on the analog (hand and arm signals, flagging, IR signaling, etc.). That's the change in the modern military. Having the communication system fail is the equivalent of having the main gun fail: you are no longer an effective fighter. The communication system should protected, hardened, and as reliable in combat as a soldier's rifle. Air forces are at the front of this. There are countless mission-critical information systems for which there is no 'analogue' option. If the bomber doesn't have a data link with the spotter on the ground, the bombs are not dropped. If the IFF system on the helicopter isn't working, there is no takeoff. Technology is no longer a "nice to have" but an essential part of warfighting.
- kitrose 6y ago
  Former Marine officer, disagree here that this is the change in the modern military. What you are describing is a major weakness of that type of air support. Fighting certainly doesn't stop because you can't get comms with the bird. You just lose that as on option to deploy. I think what gets abstracted away when people think about military operations is that it's not a chess board back at the Pentagon. They only are accomplished by physical deployment of force. You always plan for the back up contingencies because the mission still needs to get done if all the systems aren't online. Long hard experience has taught us the way you make operations resilient is always know how to fall back on a physical signal like popping a smoke or sending up a flare. --Perhaps that take is a bit too simplistic, so take it with a grain of salt from a ground combat element guy. I get it that there a large portions of the military who don't show up to play when their widgets stop working.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    >> I get it that there a large portions of the military who don't show up to play when their widgets stop working. Ya. Air Force and Navy are defined by their widgets. If the aircraft cannot fly, the air force cannot air force. If the ships don't float, the navy doesn't navy. That's the cultural difference. The army has trouble dealing with 100% reliance on anything. For pilots and sailors such reliance comes natually.
jotm 6y ago
> when those fail Then make them not fail. If it's as important as a rifle, you make sure the failure rate is as low as possible/acceptable, right?

wjmao88 6y ago

This is more of a risk-reward trade off that comes with anything that is more performant but more sophisticated. The same can be said about guns, but obviously the reward of having a gun is vastly greater than the risk of it malfunctioning.

craftinator 6y ago
But on this same point, the military favors very simple firearms for good reason: they don't malfunction nearly as often, and are robust enough to survive very harsh conditions without much change in firing characteristics. A good analogy is to website availability: if you run a personal blog, it doesn't matter if your uptime is ~100% or 80%. If you run a remote monitoring site for a power grid however... You don't gain anything if you lose reliability. See the F-35 JST for a good case in point.
- rjr8r83ueue 6y ago
  What makes you think the military favors simple firearms? American forces use small arms that require a fairly high degree of service compared to alternatives like the ak-47/akm variants. It's not a problem because the maintenance requirements can be adequately accomplished by a single disciplined soldier and the performance gains over simpler alternatives are substantial.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    Because I've used them. The most complicated firearm the average grunt will use is an M249, which has fewer moving parts than many handguns. Production inertia and poor accuracy keep the AK series out of the US armed forces, along with a preference to 5.56 over 7.62. Basic maintenance for an M16 is nearly identical for an AK-47, the M16 is lighter and has smaller/lighter ammunition, and has better mid-range and long-range accuracy. So let's say that there is a very slow curve to complexity vs convenience up to a certain point. But we have been using the M16 since the 60's; plenty of newer, more complex rifles have come out in that time, many with better range, accuracy, stopping power, cyclic rate, etc... But we haven't moved away from a simple, fairly reliable rifle.

mr_overalls 6y ago

Did the widespread adoption of GPS in the military cause a degradation in orienteering & map-reading skills?

galacticaactual 6y ago
Yes.
mjlee 6y ago
Absolutely. As a concrete example, the US Navy stopped teaching celestial navigation and have only recently begun to teach it again. They now have a skill gap of mid-seniority navigators who have no astro-nav experience and will struggle under GPS denial.
- moftz 6y ago
  How many people on the boat do you need that know celestial navigation? Sounds like something you could have someone go to school for to specialize in and then make sure you've got at least one on every boat rather than make everyone learn. We've got plenty of ways to defeat jamming, the newest block of GPS satellites have ways to increase signal power in certain areas and anti-radiation missiles can blow up a jammer. GPS only comes from space so it's pretty easy to find someone on the ground messing with it. We also have things like star trackers that are used on satellites to determine position without GPS that could easily be implemented on a boat if not already on there. These systems could be hardened against EMPs and only brought out in case of absolute emergency. I don't see the need of every navigator having their own sextant.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    How many people on the boat do you need that know celestial navigation? Easy. The same number that know how to use a GPS. Your one guy may be the first casualty. We've got plenty of ways to defeat jamming, the newest block of GPS satellites have ways to increase signal power in certain areas and anti-radiation missiles can blow up a jammer. What do you do when your enemy dumps a load of sand in orbit?

nimbius 6y ago

As former enlisted 91A, dont worry about it! I remember being used to putting up with all kinds of absolutely shit ideas from command and this ones no different. We didnt even have functioning body and vehicle armor in the last conflict. Spare parts took months to get if they ever showed up at all. Batteries were either left in the sun in crates until they popped, quit charging after a week or so due to the heat, or the chargers broke down. So if ive got a buddy who needs wiring for the antenna array on the back of an HMMV or if im short on power cables for something, the first thing im going to do is find a few legs who hate their vests. those little connectors with the boots on them look real sturdy too, and im sure those cables wont be missed by guys who havent had the ammunition or the battery packs to fire those space age senator kickbacks for months. Start improving the army at the parts of it that arent sexy. Supply chain, and the VA system.

sandworm101 6y ago

>> For example, tank platoons rely heavily on communication devices, and when those fail, I believe teams have not trained hard enough on the analog (hand and arm signals, flagging, IR signaling, etc.). That's the change in the modern military. Having the communication system fail is the equivalent of having the main gun fail: you are no longer an effective fighter. The communication system should protected, hardened, and as reliable in combat as a soldier's rifle. Air forces are at the front of this. There are countless mission-critical information systems for which there is no 'analogue' option. If the bomber doesn't have a data link with the spotter on the ground, the bombs are not dropped. If the IFF system on the helicopter isn't working, there is no takeoff. Technology is no longer a "nice to have" but an essential part of warfighting.

kitrose 6y ago
Former Marine officer, disagree here that this is the change in the modern military. What you are describing is a major weakness of that type of air support. Fighting certainly doesn't stop because you can't get comms with the bird. You just lose that as on option to deploy. I think what gets abstracted away when people think about military operations is that it's not a chess board back at the Pentagon. They only are accomplished by physical deployment of force. You always plan for the back up contingencies because the mission still needs to get done if all the systems aren't online. Long hard experience has taught us the way you make operations resilient is always know how to fall back on a physical signal like popping a smoke or sending up a flare. --Perhaps that take is a bit too simplistic, so take it with a grain of salt from a ground combat element guy. I get it that there a large portions of the military who don't show up to play when their widgets stop working.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> I get it that there a large portions of the military who don't show up to play when their widgets stop working. Ya. Air Force and Navy are defined by their widgets. If the aircraft cannot fly, the air force cannot air force. If the ships don't float, the navy doesn't navy. That's the cultural difference. The army has trouble dealing with 100% reliance on anything. For pilots and sailors such reliance comes natually.

jotm 6y ago

> when those fail Then make them not fail. If it's as important as a rifle, you make sure the failure rate is as low as possible/acceptable, right?