Land Warrior gear to equip a US Army battalion

After 15 years in the making, our footsoldiers are finally getting the proper location-based gear that they need. Noah Shachtman, one of the finest experts on military technology out there, has just informed us via his blog, DefenseTech, that one Army battalion will be equipped with a bunch of wearable electronics, known collectively as the Land Warrior. The team leaders of the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry division (better known as the "Manchus", who are slated to be deployed to Iraq next year) will get the nearly 20-pound getup that includes weapon-mounted sensors, voice communications, GPS, a full-color visual interface via the monocle, and a long-range gun sight on the monocle as well. While only the team leaders will get the whole kit and caboodle for now, every soldier will get a GPS beacon, alerting the higher-ups to their sub rosa whereabouts.

[nizzy1115 @ Oct 21st 2006 5:19PM]

I really think that this is cool. Anything to help out our boys is awesome.

www.futuretechnologynow.blogspot.com

If only we could somehow make this gear weigh a little less...

[hobgoblin @ Oct 22nd 2006 9:43AM]

im guessing that most of the weight comes from batteries and the optics. most everything else can be sized down quite nicely. alltho, i have a feel there is allso a whole lot of padding involved to make it more rugged...

[andrew p @ Oct 21st 2006 5:53PM]

Yes, we need better gear to make sure our enemies in the middle east don't get weapons of mass destruction which they could use against us...*1

Wait, I mean we need to remove ruthless dictators who abuse their people and we need to spread democracy...*2 *3

Wait, I meant we need to make sure that Iraq doesn't become a terrorist hotbed where the evil-doers can recruit and plan their next attacks against USA.*4

Yes, we need this gear to make sure that doesn't happen, and it is important that we stick to our original objectives.

Our goal is victory, and we can't cut and run. *5

*1- It is ok to act on conjectures. But it is not ok to do anything when we have facts (North Korea), in that case we use diplomacy

*2- But we are selective about which dicators we oust. Not all heartless dictators are worthy of being removed.

*3- Unless we don't like the party elected, in that case we slap them with economic embargoes and make it illegal to do business with citizens of that country (Palestine).

4*- Even if the only reason this might take place, is entirely our fault, since we might remove the only force keeping the country in order and in relative peace/harmony.

*5- Even if more people die than would otherwise in the situtation before our interference. It's also OK to create hatred against our country and create generations of enemies who will hate us. The long run security of our country is irrelevant.

[Mike @ Oct 21st 2006 5:59PM]

god i am so sick of this stupid 6th grade michael moore idiocy, with people who dont even know all the facts...

[Joel Rossel @ Oct 21st 2006 7:19PM]

Wait, I meant we need to make sure that Iraq doesn't become a terrorist hotbed where the evil-doers can recruit and plan their next attacks against USA.*4

Our goal is victory, and we can't cut and run. *5

***1 > I suppouse you want US troops to go up against 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks... How well would that battle turn out I wonder? - THERE ARE REASONS we don't fight every battle with our military... look it up.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm

***2 > All heartless dictators ARE worthy of being removed... that doesn't mean we can remove them all at once.

***3 > Well, we more than 'dislike' the palistinians... they still have an un-renounced desire to ... and I quote... "push Israel [our ally] into the sea". I suppose you would rather us befriend our ally's enemies? (that's like befriending Germany when they attacked Britian.

***4 > So, if terrorists were in this country plotting to kill civilians, you wouldn't want the government to do anythign them? O, that's right... it is still our fault terrorists want to blow us up.. nevermind. Forget I even mentioned number 4.

***5 > so... leaving them alone (like we did for the last 200+ years) was supposed to make them love us... right? Wait.. that didn't work either.

Hopefully, I've proven how poorly constructed this person's whole argument is.

[Simon @ Oct 21st 2006 6:14PM]

cool, now US supported terrorists can be even more effective at killing people that don't bend over when told.

killing people is becoming more like a video game every day. way to go.

[Art @ Oct 21st 2006 6:15PM]

As a trigger puller, what I fear most is the day when, in a firefight, I get some general or the SECDEF whispering in my headset, demanding that I pan right so they can better get a video feed of something that interests them, versus, oh, the bad guy on the left who needs to quickly meet a violent death and who is actively seeking to kill me. This adoration of total information awareness is troubling without even touching the whole debate over the added weight. Has our military properly identified those needs of the foot soldiers, and is working to fill those requirements, or has someone assembled some neat gadgets and a defense contractor is seeking to find similar needs, in order to push some sales? It had better be the former and not the latter -- the latter is what gets folks killed. And more isn't always better.

[Dar the Monk @ Oct 21st 2006 8:32PM]

I might become a chaplain and I do want our military to be the best. I hope this gear will provide a good step into protecting them even more.
I agree with you ART.

[uclatommy @ Oct 21st 2006 6:41PM]

Very cool. I wonder if this kit includes that new armor that goes rigid on impact with a bullet but returns to soft under normal usage. This battalion is gonna kill lots of people.

Gun mounted camera's are awesome. Lets you peek around corners and over walls. I wonder if they require calibration? They need to make those cameras capable of switching between thermal, night and daylight vision.

[brennan @ Oct 21st 2006 7:41PM]

"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
- Michael Savage



I am happy to see this. Finally something useful for my tax dollars.

[Andrew @ Oct 21st 2006 8:31PM]

very cool stuff. but i wonder how heavy it would be to wear all that equipment.

[Nick @ Oct 22nd 2006 1:36AM]

nearly 20 pounds.... read the post (again)

[Eddie @ Oct 21st 2006 8:32PM]

"Very cool. I wonder if this kit includes that new armor that goes rigid on impact with a bullet but returns to soft under normal usage. This battalion is gonna kill lots of people."

That sounds exactly like Pak Protector Armor from Ringworld, by Larry Niven. Do you have a link to this armor?

[Eddie @ Oct 21st 2006 8:33PM]

I completely agree with brennan. Great book, BTW.

[Mikhail Wright @ Oct 21st 2006 8:35PM]

One question, have you fellow readers not noticed that are troops will become GPS-enabled? With this advancement, isn't it possible, that our enemies could create hacks so as to use our ver own GPS capabilities to track our troops and make the whole malfeasance of war all the more easier to expedite.

[Eddie @ Oct 21st 2006 8:37PM]

I found that Impact Armor brennan was talking about. Cool stuff:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/14/us-canadian-olympic-skiers-get-skintight-armor/

[Canuck @ Oct 21st 2006 9:48PM]

Gee, you can see the bad guy but can't return fire because that crapy M16 (and all Variants) keeps jamming. Hmmm all that time and money spent developing gadgets but what the people on the ground really need is a proper weapon.

[Juaquin @ Oct 21st 2006 9:55PM]

Does anyone find it strange that this is announced only days after BF2142 is released, and that the whole Land Warrior system sounds oddly familiar to the NetBat system in the game?

Conspiracy, I say.

[NickG @ Oct 21st 2006 10:07PM]

Juaquin, the Land Warrior project has been in the works since the 90's. Way before BF2142 was even a dream in some crazed EA marketer's head.

[Juaquin @ Oct 22nd 2006 3:00AM]

NickG:

Don't worry, I was kidding. I fully realize that it takes the military a long-ass time to develop anything.

[pwfletcher @ Oct 21st 2006 10:55PM]

I used to be a "Manchu" when they were stationed on the DMZ in Korea and we definitely did not have anything like that ... glad to see that they are getting engadgified now :-)

[PEZ @ Oct 21st 2006 11:07PM]

You can equip the US military with whatever you like, they are still going to lose a war without meaning.

[brennan @ Oct 21st 2006 11:25PM]

pez, the US military has yet to lose a war and don't even mention vietnam (59,000 US soldiers died, 2million NVA, sounds like a US victory to me). Iraq was a major success when we conquered it in a few monthes. Things are a bit rough right now, but I don't think we are even trying to win the war. How could we even try to win with the likes of the UN, NY Times, and CNN all working against us?

[ebferret @ Oct 22nd 2006 1:20AM]

Generally retreating is considered a loss.

[Nick @ Oct 22nd 2006 1:39AM]

you numbnuts

[Chris @ Oct 22nd 2006 2:12AM]

"the US military has yet to lose a war"

Didn't the US lose in the only war they have ever fought against Canada?

[Brian @ Oct 22nd 2006 12:02AM]

Eye dongle: using the scope to view around a corner, spot a radical, target radical dead on... HIT 10 Monkeys get a free laptop! Damn popups...

Seems nice though, now they can ghetto aim around a corner, but hit the target rather then pump bullets in every direction.
But really, using the wall as cover while hitting the enemy will be a great help to the troops err, team leaders.

[snorkle256 @ Oct 22nd 2006 1:04AM]

Yes but the real question is, do they train with GR:AW?

[Matt @ Oct 22nd 2006 1:38AM]

wow, why the hell are all Engadget's readers dirty conservatives? i feel dirty just reading some of these pro-Bush posts.

[Colonel @ Oct 22nd 2006 1:44AM]

real life Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter?

...where do I sign up?

[John Doe @ Oct 22nd 2006 6:38AM]

Cool now if only they could invent a technology to give to our soldiers that would protect them from idiot Commander and Chiefs we would be all set.

[Corporal Noel @ Oct 22nd 2006 7:56AM]

I love how a tech article about some crappy gear that I'm glad I don't have to wear turns into a political discussion. Luckily the Marine Corps doesn't have money to buy this kind of crap. Does sound more useful than the nearly 3 billion dollars worth of jammers that we have here, though. And to answer an earlier question, yes the cameras have to be calibrated if they are to hit anything. And it *would* be nice to have thermal capabilites, but that would probably add at least 5 pounds. My flak jacket already ways 35+ pounds, and that is just one piece of gear. I personally would just like a pair of night vision goggles that work. Hopefully this doesn't waste the billions of dollars that the Blue Force Tracker (another Army project) has...