I've only said it three different ways. Since you say you were in the army, I'm going to assume you understand command structure. Orders come down from above and the unit is entirely undemocratic. Why would an individual soldier need access to UAV footage? A commander or a platoon leader, sure, but you're arguing that every soldier on the battlefield should have access to a live video feed of the target. Why on earth would that be necessary? Do you understand that the video feed is encrypted? Every single soldier would need his COMSEC changed before going into battle and the key would have to be changed again if, god forbid, one of the little hand held devices fell into the hands of the enemy. It's not the job of a rifleman to think. It's his job to follow orders. There is no equality on the battlefield and there sure as hell isn't any need to load up an infantryman with more information than he can possibly process when what he really needs to do is keep a count of his ammo, scan his surroundings, follow orders, and shoot to kill. That's his job.nlsme1 wrote:
You disagree?JohnG@lt wrote:
http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/200 … cepalm.jpgnlsme1 wrote:
I am sure their are researchers working on what you say will never happen.
As far as information, pertinent information is key. I would say having a live feed of a differant vantage point would be pertinent. I'm not saying give every infantry control of their own laptop. I am not even saying give them control, I am saying give them a feed. I get live video on my cellphone. Rugged, good resolution, light, and pretty cheap to produce.
The right information, stripped of irrelevant clutter, delivered in a timely manner, to exactly the right units - is invaluable.JohnG@lt wrote:
You've obviously never been in combat.nlsme1 wrote:
He was saying that infantry don't need direct acess to UAV's. I say the more info available to the soldier the better.pace51 wrote:
You said we don't need UAV's...
Or intelligence... and I thought you meant that intelligence has no impact on how infantry battles have changed. Sorry if I misunderstood.
The AK is a great rifle, no doubt, but any firearm can malfunction... even GlocksFloppY_ wrote:
the AK will work nearly nomatter what you do to it.
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2010-06-01 11:58:56)
We're talking about the military here. The first and second points happens constantly, the third never happens and the fourth happens so rarely that it's laughable. The military is one giant bureaucracy where everything has to be filtered through multiple layers. It's like playing a giant, unfunny version of the telephone game.rdx-fx wrote:
The right information, stripped of irrelevant clutter, delivered in a timely manner, to exactly the right units - is invaluable.JohnG@lt wrote:
You've obviously never been in combat.nlsme1 wrote:
He was saying that infantry don't need direct acess to UAV's. I say the more info available to the soldier the better.
Taken to an extreme example, one bullet, fired at the right target, at the right moment, in the right place - could end an entire war.
(Hitler, WW-2, anyone?)
Trick is to meet all of the above criteria
- The wrong information is just that - wrong, false, incorrect
- Irrelevant info - too much noise, and you saturate the receiving people to the point they start ignoring the rare nugget of relevant info.They also have limited brain 'bandwidth' to process information. You keep jabbering in their ear, they can't pay attention to their current situation.
- Timely manner - we really don't give a damn where the target was sleeping last week.
- Right units - Tell the people that can do something with the info. The SF unit 1 mile away can do more with a target location, than an infantry company 200 miles away.
Exacting, specific intel enables you to use a smaller tool to accomplish a task.
It's the difference between using a single bullet to take out one target right now, or a sky full of B-17's to saturate a whole city with explosives.
Commander holds the map. No one else needs to know mission critical information.nlsme1 wrote:
So no infantry should have a map then? Considering orders come from above and all. They tell you every step to take. Every bullet to fire. A soldier NEVER has to make a decision on what to do.
Sorry if I said give every one access. There is no need. However, to have the info on the field would be a good thing. As far as encryption, it has already been broken before. The enemy has had the info that you don't want on the field. The info you dont want ANY of our troops to have.
I am not saying that we need EVERY troop to have EVERY bit of intel on a mission. UAV feeds show intersting things. It COULD be beneficial SOMETIMES.
That is pretty much an arguement FOR giving access to UAV footage directly to troops.JohnG@lt wrote:
We're talking about the military here. The first and second points happens constantly, the third never happens and the fourth happens so rarely that it's laughable. The military is one giant bureaucracy where everything has to be filtered through multiple layers. It's like playing a giant, unfunny version of the telephone game.rdx-fx wrote:
The right information, stripped of irrelevant clutter, delivered in a timely manner, to exactly the right units - is invaluable.JohnG@lt wrote:
You've obviously never been in combat.
Taken to an extreme example, one bullet, fired at the right target, at the right moment, in the right place - could end an entire war.
(Hitler, WW-2, anyone?)
Trick is to meet all of the above criteria
- The wrong information is just that - wrong, false, incorrect
- Irrelevant info - too much noise, and you saturate the receiving people to the point they start ignoring the rare nugget of relevant info.They also have limited brain 'bandwidth' to process information. You keep jabbering in their ear, they can't pay attention to their current situation.
- Timely manner - we really don't give a damn where the target was sleeping last week.
- Right units - Tell the people that can do something with the info. The SF unit 1 mile away can do more with a target location, than an infantry company 200 miles away.
Exacting, specific intel enables you to use a smaller tool to accomplish a task.
It's the difference between using a single bullet to take out one target right now, or a sky full of B-17's to saturate a whole city with explosives.
This is normally where I would call you a moron or break out the facepalm pic but since we're in a newly controlled DST environment, I will refrain.nlsme1 wrote:
That is pretty much an arguement FOR giving access to UAV footage directly to troops.JohnG@lt wrote:
We're talking about the military here. The first and second points happens constantly, the third never happens and the fourth happens so rarely that it's laughable. The military is one giant bureaucracy where everything has to be filtered through multiple layers. It's like playing a giant, unfunny version of the telephone game.rdx-fx wrote:
The right information, stripped of irrelevant clutter, delivered in a timely manner, to exactly the right units - is invaluable.
Taken to an extreme example, one bullet, fired at the right target, at the right moment, in the right place - could end an entire war.
(Hitler, WW-2, anyone?)
Trick is to meet all of the above criteria
- The wrong information is just that - wrong, false, incorrect
- Irrelevant info - too much noise, and you saturate the receiving people to the point they start ignoring the rare nugget of relevant info.They also have limited brain 'bandwidth' to process information. You keep jabbering in their ear, they can't pay attention to their current situation.
- Timely manner - we really don't give a damn where the target was sleeping last week.
- Right units - Tell the people that can do something with the info. The SF unit 1 mile away can do more with a target location, than an infantry company 200 miles away.
Exacting, specific intel enables you to use a smaller tool to accomplish a task.
It's the difference between using a single bullet to take out one target right now, or a sky full of B-17's to saturate a whole city with explosives.
Not just the raw feed of all UAV traffic to every troop.nlsme1 wrote:
That is pretty much an arguement FOR giving access to UAV footage directly to troops.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-06-01 12:25:19)
You make the same point as I was.rdx-fx wrote:
Not just the raw feed of all UAV traffic to every troop.nlsme1 wrote:
That is pretty much an arguement FOR giving access to UAV footage directly to troops.
Too much information, too much of it irrelevant to their specific task.
Now, if a squad leader could magically pull a Jack Bauer and say, "Hey, Chloe, I need the satellite imagery and UAV coverage for my immediate vicinity uploaded to my iPhone, right NOW!" - that might be useful.
Though that level of immediate, correct, sufficient information is still only on TV shows.
info has to be correct, relevant, timely, and accessible to those that need to know - screw up any one of those factors, and you are causing more harm than good to the people you're trying to help. Call it "CART" - Correct, Available, Relevant, Timely .. if you want to coin an acronym. One could even get cute and make some little mnemonic about "CART before horses" or something along those lines.
Oh, and while you're sending out all this good info to everyone around - make sure you're not feeding it to the bad guys too. That's Bad, m'kay...
Edit: Now that we've wandered FAR afield from Small Arms technology.. We now return you to your regularly scheduled wall of text, already in progress.
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-01 12:31:42)
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2010-06-01 12:33:10)
Wow the AR-15 did amazingly well in there. Now I hope others will believe me when I say my ARs never fail on me.west-phoenix-az wrote:
The AK is a great rifle, no doubt, but any firearm can malfunction... even GlocksFloppY_ wrote:
the AK will work nearly nomatter what you do to it.
Thought you might find these interesting:
not really going to revolutionize weaponry?globefish23 wrote:
Caseless ammunition? Flechettes? Airbursting ammunition and grenades?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_ACR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM29_OICW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25
...
Only will happen with improvements in the imaging chips and image processing. But I mean, FLIR and other companies are just cranking out improvements...SEREMAKER wrote:
I want better NV goggles, ones that give better detail, see further, better depth perception
we should well beyond waiting for improvements .... we've been stuck with gen IIIs/IVs for yearsTrotskygrad wrote:
Only will happen with improvements in the imaging chips and image processing. But I mean, FLIR and other companies are just cranking out improvements...SEREMAKER wrote:
I want better NV goggles, ones that give better detail, see further, better depth perception
It may be possible to see soldiers using sixth sense technology in the near future.JohnG@lt wrote:
I've only said it three different ways. Since you say you were in the army, I'm going to assume you understand command structure. Orders come down from above and the unit is entirely undemocratic. Why would an individual soldier need access to UAV footage? A commander or a platoon leader, sure, but you're arguing that every soldier on the battlefield should have access to a live video feed of the target. Why on earth would that be necessary? Do you understand that the video feed is encrypted? Every single soldier would need his COMSEC changed before going into battle and the key would have to be changed again if, god forbid, one of the little hand held devices fell into the hands of the enemy. It's not the job of a rifleman to think. It's his job to follow orders. There is no equality on the battlefield and there sure as hell isn't any need to load up an infantryman with more information than he can possibly process when what he really needs to do is keep a count of his ammo, scan his surroundings, follow orders, and shoot to kill. That's his job.
Last edited by BLdw (2010-06-01 12:59:11)
military acquisition dude, it sucks.SEREMAKER wrote:
we should well beyond waiting for improvements .... we've been stuck with gen IIIs/IVs for yearsTrotskygrad wrote:
Only will happen with improvements in the imaging chips and image processing. But I mean, FLIR and other companies are just cranking out improvements...SEREMAKER wrote:
I want better NV goggles, ones that give better detail, see further, better depth perception
yeah I knowTrotskygrad wrote:
military acquisition dude, it sucks.SEREMAKER wrote:
we should well beyond waiting for improvements .... we've been stuck with gen IIIs/IVs for yearsTrotskygrad wrote:
Only will happen with improvements in the imaging chips and image processing. But I mean, FLIR and other companies are just cranking out improvements...
You can have finer resolution. Just comes at the cost of fragility of components (smaller), shorter battery life, shorter overall lifespan of the actual sensor cells, greater weight hanging off the front of your kevlar, and sensitivity to light overload (i.e. daylight burnout).SEREMAKER wrote:
we should well beyond waiting for improvements .... we've been stuck with gen IIIs/IVs for yearsTrotskygrad wrote:
Only will happen with improvements in the imaging chips and image processing. But I mean, FLIR and other companies are just cranking out improvements...SEREMAKER wrote:
I want better NV goggles, ones that give better detail, see further, better depth perception
Or, that too. Okay, eggheads with quantum physics degrees and an S-4 clerk with a clue.Trotskygrad wrote:
military acquisition dude, it sucks.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-06-01 13:13:49)
I'm amazed an AR15/M4 platform did THAT well when it comes to beeing buried-Sh1fty- wrote:
Wow the AR-15 did amazingly well in there. Now I hope others will believe me when I say my ARs never fail on me.west-phoenix-az wrote:
The AK is a great rifle, no doubt, but any firearm can malfunction... even GlocksFloppY_ wrote:
the AK will work nearly nomatter what you do to it.
Thought you might find these interesting:
I don't know how the terrain is in Iraq or Afghanistan but I heard their troubles were because of the fine talcum power like dust out there.
or you can improve image processing to take out the grain, etc.rdx-fx wrote:
You can have finer resolution. Just comes at the cost of fragility of components (smaller), shorter battery life, shorter overall lifespan of the actual sensor cells, greater weight hanging off the front of your kevlar, and sensitivity to light overload (i.e. daylight burnout).SEREMAKER wrote:
we should well beyond waiting for improvements .... we've been stuck with gen IIIs/IVs for yearsTrotskygrad wrote:
Only will happen with improvements in the imaging chips and image processing. But I mean, FLIR and other companies are just cranking out improvements...
Smaller sensor cell = exponentially fewer photons hitting the sensor = increased sensitivity & power drain needed per cell = all of the above problems.
Oh, and grinding silicon alloys (or Zinc Selenide) into IR optical lenses is apparently a little more involved than glass.
(Both of the above are transparent in various parts of the infrared spectrum. Zinc Selenide is better but much more of a pain in the ass to work with).
To get any more breakthroughs in soldier-wearable IR optics, you're going to need a bunch of eggheads with advanced degrees in quantum physics.Or, that too. Okay, eggheads with quantum physics degrees and an S-4 clerk with a clue.Trotskygrad wrote:
military acquisition dude, it sucks.
