Soldier of the Future Gets His Gear On
TARMIYAH, Iraq -- They were supposed to be wearing the high-tech soldier suits of the future. But when the grunts of the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment first started running around with a pile of gadgets on their backs and their helmets, they absolutely hated the gear.
Oh, maybe the Land Warrior gizmo suite -- complete with digital maps, wearable computers and new radios -- might do the bosses some good, the troops told me. And yeah, the equipment was about as close as troops today were going to get to the kind of tricked-out, sci-fi ensemble you might see worn by Halo's Master Chief. But at 16 pounds, on top of an already crushing 60-plus-pound load for grunts, the gear just wasn't worth the weight. The Army brass wasn't exactly thrilled with Land Warrior, either -- it yanked every last dime to fund the get-ups. The half-billion-dollar, 15-year project looked dead.
Cash was on hand to send the 4/9 into battle with Land Warrior, though. And their commanding officer, Lt. Col. Bill Prior, was a big fan. So, this spring, Land Warrior went off to Iraq.
I've just spent a week with Prior and the 4/9 (known as the "Manchus" since their assaults on China in 1901). And much to my surprise, a bunch of the soldiers in the unit are warming up to Land Warrior, especially now that the gizmo ensemble has been pared down and made more tactically relevant. So now the question is: can this once-doomed soldier-of-the-future ensemble spring back to life?
Over the last decade, the military has connected nearly all its command posts and all its vehicles into a kind of internet for battle. That allowed them to, at the very least, see each other's locations and better coordinate attacks.
Individual soldiers, however, still remain largely off the grid -- only now, more than four years into the Iraq war, are many troop teams getting radios of their own. That's a problem because counterinsurgency fights, like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, are almost wholly dependent on small groups of soldiers like these. Land Warrior was supposed to be the way to plug them in.
Captain Jack Moore, the commander of the 4/9's "Blowtorch" company, peers into his Land Warrior monocle. Inside is a digital map of Tarmiyah, a filthy little town about 25 kilometers north of Baghdad that's become a haven for Islamists. Blue icons show two of his platoons sweeping through the western half of the town. Two other icons represent Blowtorch soldiers who have teamed up with special forces and Iraqi Army units to raid local mosques with insurgent ties.
A red dot suddenly pops up on Moore's monocle screen: 3rd platoon has found a pair of improvised bombs -- black boxes, filled with homemade explosives. Other troops will circumvent the scene.
As the other platoons move south to north, green lights blink on Moore's map. Each of these "digital chem lights" represents a house checked and cleared. It keeps different groups of soldiers from kicking down the same set of doors twice.
A year ago, these chem lights weren't even part of the Land Warrior code. But after a suggestion from a Manchu soldier, the digital markers were added -- and quickly became the system's most popular feature. During air assaults on Baquba, to the northeast, troops were regularly dropped a quarter or half-kilometer from their original objective; the chem lights allowed them to converge on the spot where they were supposed to go. In the middle of one mission, a trail of green lights was used to mark a new objective -- and show the easiest way to get to the place.
Later, a five-man "small kill team" or SKT, was set up about 10 kilometers north of Tarmiyah to ambush an insurgent crew. But that crew turned out to be larger than expected, and the SKT was suddenly being attacked by 10 Iraqis. Almost instantly, Captain Aaron Miller, stationed two kilometers to the south, was able to respond.
"They didn't have to tell us their location -- we knew it right away. So they could focus on the fight," Miller says.
Miller is still not happy with how much the system weighs. "Look, I need this like I need a 10th arm," he sighs. And all this stuff (Land Warrior does), my cell phone basically does the same at home." But Miller is committed to soldiers being networked. So he's willing to be the digital guinea pig. "It's got to start with someone."
The system has become more palatable to the Manchus because it's been pared down, in all sorts of ways. By consolidating parts, a 16-pound ensemble is now down to a little more than 10. A new, digital gun scope has been largely abandoned by the troops -- the system was too cumbersome and too slow to be effective. And now, not every soldier in the 4/9 has to lug around Land Warrior. Only team leaders and above are so equipped.
"It helped morale a lot," says Lt. Col. Prior. "Leaders need it to track where you're going next, and when to use the right route. But for Joe (average soldier) -- pulling security, climbing through a window -- it was too much."
It still is, for some members of the Manchus.
"If it were five pounds, it'd be money," says Sergeant First Class Benjamin Mulkey. "But right now, it's not worth the weight."
Sam Lee, another sergeant stationed in Tarmiyah, drives back and forth over a stretch of unpaved road. His Land Warrior system has frozen up, and tells him he's a few hundred meters away from his actual location. When he gets out, his fellow soldiers can talk fine over their radios. His Land Warrior model is dead.
And of course, everybody has to be plugged into the system in order for it to be worth a damn. At the end of an exhausting night's worth of house-to-house searches, Lieutenant Michael Bennett loses track of half of his platoon. They aren't very far away -- just a few blocks. But because no one is up on Land Warrior, it takes an hour of bleary-eyed scrambling for the platoon to be reunited.
But while some troops struggle with Land Warrior's basics, new features are being added to the system. Video feeds from small ground robots, pictures from flying drones and data from sniper-detecting sensors should all be available in the Manchus' monocles before their tour is over next fall.
The question is whether the 4/9 will be the last unit to wear the Land Warrior gear. Right now, there is no money in the Defense Department budget to similarly equip another set of soldiers. But the 2nd Infantry Division's 5th Brigade Combat Team is in the process of officially asking for the gear. And Land Warrior allies are also pushing Congress to include $60 to $80 million to give more troops the get-ups.
Neither effort has been successful, so far. So the future of the soldier-of-the-future still remains very much in doubt.
I'm a big fan of Wired, and I also understand the need to support American individuals in an awful situation. Most of us I am sure also understand the pressures on reporters embedded with the US military to take sides. But does describing an Iraqi town as 'filthy', 'little' and 'a haven for Islamists' really help any of us? 'Islamist' means a follower of Islam--the way the word is used here implies Islamists are people who by default need to be fought with. Can you imagine a small American town being described as 'a filthy little haven for Christians'? Not without causing offense. What's happening in Iraq is clearly agonizing for everyone the world over (except a few people making a lot of money) and I would plead for another level of thought about the wording of (interesting) pieces like these, and how they contribute to the global conversation about our wars.
Tim, don't be such a whiner. It's a sad state in America when I read an article like this, come across a phrase like "filthy little town" and immediately know that some weak stomached liberal like you will complain about the wording.
If something is covered in dirt, it is dirty. If something is especially dirty, it becomes filthy. This is a small town in Iraq, calling it filthy is no different than calling my truck green. It is what it is.
preston, don't be so pedestrian. the point tim was making relates to the intolerance that pervades those media outlets that pander to the ignorant and uniformed. just as not all christians are racists, despite the fact that the kkk used the bible to justify their rhetoric and violence under the guise of a christian identity movement, the same is true of followers of islam. an extremist movement does not define the whole. and by the context of his post, i can only assume that when you call him a, "weak stomached liberal," you mean that he is educated about other cultures and doesnt have to resort to personal attacks or revert to the simplistic rhetoric of claiming that America is in such a sad state when intolerance and bigotry is not criticized.
"Filthy" is certainly a valid description for a town (especially a hot desert town that's probably caked with sand), but Tim's right about the "haven for Islamists" comment.
Tim, get with it huh?! The REAL Islamist IS an extremist by Western definition. The 'moderate' Islamist is not a real Muslim; rather, he is a compromiser who prefers the easy confortable life to the violent terrorist life of his leader. Real Muslims are those who call their people to arms like the lunatic from Iran.
"Islamist" is widely recognized as a term which refers to those practitioners of Islam who believe their faith is superior to all other philosophies and commit acts intended to affirm that believed superiority against others. It in no way refers to Muslims in general. If you want to participate in any public discussion in a sophisticated manner, you would do well to understand the common terminology.
There's no such thing as an "Islamist".
There are domestic insurgents against an occupying power (the US), which in any other context would be regarded as normal and sane.
The technology is cool, but wars of aggression like this are definitely not.
I would have said it a bit differently, Rob - an Islamist is not a follower of Islam, that is a Muslim.
An Islamist is a Muslim (presumably) who thinks that Muslims, or Islam collectively, should rule the world, or as large a chunk of it as they can hack off.
Thicker skins, meanwhile, might go a long way.
Tim Guest: 'Islamist' means a follower of Islam -- the way the word is used here implies Islamists are people who by default need to be fought with.
Tim's facts are wrong, thus his conclusion is a mess.
A follower of Islam is called a "Muslim."
The term "Islamist" is used to refer specifically to politicized, militant, purist, expansionist, totalitarian Islam. [1]
And yes, Islamists DO need to be fought with. By definition. (Theirs, not ours).
The term "Christianist" is sometimes used to denote a similar distinction between plain-Christianity and militant-Christianity. [2]
Tim, *please* get your facts straight.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianist
Rob Cop -- 'Real Muslims are those who call their people to arms like the lunatic from Iran'--In the same way real Christians are those who call their people to arms, like the lunatic from the US? See the point? Interesting that both critical replies to my post contain attacks or judgments (a whiner, or not well-versed enough in the common terminology). Is the desire to attack instead of engage in debate that endemic in US culture? I can do that too, but it's that instinct I'm trying to highlight in the article itself. In terms of the terminology, Amper, it seems you are partially right about 'Islamist', at least from your perspective. In the Islamic world the term is used to refer to muslims who are politically engaged ('true' muslims, according to those on that side of the debate, do not engage in political affairs). Filthy, dusty, there are many words to use, and the choice has an emotional impact. In a predominantly interesting article about technology, I think the (small) point about the emotional tone stands. (Think of a 'filthy little town', a 'haven for political Christians'.)
While the comments have degenerated into political bickering, I want to comment on the sad state of the technology. How hard would it be, really, to out fit these soldiers with an HTC 8595 -- or iphone, for that matter -- hooked up to a head's up display and keychain sized GPS and a micro webcam, giving them a 'battlefield 2' type HUD and communication system, that takes up, what, 10 pounds? and that's being very conservative.
It's too bad these boys on the ground have to deal with the bureaucratic (ie, slug) pace to get the technology that would really benefit in this situation.
This is a technology blog, why get into the partisan infighting that doesn't do the 4/9 any good?
While the comments have degenerated into political bickering, I want to comment on the sad state of the technology. How hard would it be, really, to out fit these soldiers with an HTC 8595 -- or iphone, for that matter -- hooked up to a head's up display and keychain sized GPS and a micro webcam, giving them a 'battlefield 2' type HUD and communication system, that takes up, what, 10 pounds? and that's being very conservative.
It's too bad these boys on the ground have to deal with the bureaucratic (ie, slug) pace to get the technology that would really benefit in this situation.
This is a technology blog, why get into the partisan infighting that doesn't do the 4/9 any good?
The Chad--I'm getting political because I'm bored, idle, and never bother to post like this so thought I'd give it a try. Also, I expect this from the mainstream press--I'm not about to write to Bill O'Reilly--but in the technology press and especially blogs, both the writers and readers are younger and therefore, I feel, have more hope to change things. On both sides.
The article does point out the tremendous difference between the rapid pace of commercial development (think iPod/iPhone) and the slow pace of the constipated sclerotic pace of the military procurement circles, with millions of powerpoint slides, review of requirement reviews, analysis of analysis.
The common view is that the US defeated the bureaucratic inefficiency that was Soviet Communism. Alas, it has risen from the grave, and is reborn as the US Defense Procurement system.
The "sclerotic pace" is mostly due to the need to meet military specifications.
For example: Take your cell phone. Smaack it with a hammer. Then run it through the toaster, followed by three hours in the freezer. Take it out of the freezer, smack it with a hammer again, then microwave it. Does it still work? PERFECTLY? It damn better, if you want it to survive the kind of environment it will see in the field.
Chad, I feel your frustration in this regard, and I think I can answer your question. An iPhone would last but a few minutes in the conditions the LandWarrior gear is put into. Much of the weight of the system is now the actual framework that supports the hardware inside. Then there's the redundancy factor necessary, and the battery pack. These are the items that need to be addressed. It's going to take time to shrink down the hardware and casings (don't forget you have to double up on everything), and we need better battery solutions. It's coming, and LandWarrior has come a long way. I hope we stick with it and get some generations down the road. Which seems to be what the soldiers need to have happen. I think we'll be able to get the current gear down to less than five lbs in short order, and add more capability to the commander's gear as we shrink down what they already have. It's all got to be hardened and stay powered up for a long time to be effective though.
but seriously, I've seen plenty of phone that have been pretty beat up and still work. I for one have dropped, stepped on, whatever my cell phone and it still works without a hitch. Heck, it still looks good. Idk, it just seems like DARPA loses a lot of money to nothing. I think it'd be a way better system to do something like the X Prize except for Land Warrior, because the tech is there. It just needs to be put together.
I have to agree that being upset over "Islamist" is a bit hyper sensitive. You could go with the tongue twisting "Islamofascist" but I've seen criticism of that term as well. We have to have some word to call the people who want to kill us all don't we? Or is it politically incorrect to notice that little detail?
As to the technology, this seems like it's not ready for prime time like the electric car and for much the same reason -- batteries. I would be a huge percentage of the total weight is taken up by batteries. But when we can get these capabilities into the hands and heads of all the grunts and their commanders I think it will make a HUGE improvement in their efficiency and survivability. Perhaps I read too much of John Ringo's Posleen series, though. :-)
Take a look at the parallel Israeli program.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/i/inf-200.htm
They are focusing only on the commanders, where such systems become truly effective, but intentionally left the squad without the new electronic gear, as they have to fight, not to mess with gadgets.
Commanders must be in direct control of their troops and not rely on electronics to do it for them. But they also have to be networked and connected to be part of the modern battle.