John Kettler Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 This discussion of the current status of Land Warrior seems to me to be highly germane to CM:SF and goes way beyond anything I've seen or read so far. The Beta test was apparently the Stryker installation, but the upcoming one will be a recon battalion, on the troops, not just vetronics. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006531224030.asp Remote Weapon Station issues and fixes http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200531422.asp Stryker upgrades http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005419195734.asp Russians like the Stryker. In a separate article, (not given here) we learn that they've copied the slat armor for their own BTR-90. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005718232136.asp Here are two somewhat contradictory views of mortar survivability in the face of U.S. CM/CB capabilities. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005102514319.asp http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200531422.asp Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Thanks for the links John. I'll check them out soon. As far as I know the Land Warrior program, as it is being implemented right now, is called the Stryker Warrior program. It is a scaled back version and is far more practical to implement sooner rather than later. I have a senior officer friend who was somehow involved with the program when he was at the Pentagon last year. He couldn't say much, but what he was able to tell me backed up some other info I had seen. The communications part of Land Warrior is pretty much the only thing that will be implemented within CM:SF's timeframe. Wonder if some of the articles will contradict that Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Read some of the articles. I think Dunnigan might be slightly misinformed in that first article. The NOMAD helmet display units sent to Iraq were a failure, but it seems that is what he is refering to when he said: That gear worked well, and the troops were enthusiastic about using a vehicle that was booted, rather than simply startedAs far as I know everything tied into the NOMAD display is gone. That means the camera at the end of the gun and some other neat tie ins to the RPDA (Rugged Personal Digital Assistant). The RHC (Rugged Handheld Computer) is also apparently out for the time being. Integration of these devices into the uniform also out. Battery life, cooling, weight, and bulk problems all too unresolved to field. From what I can tell the only stuff being fielded soon, that makes any difference in CM terms, is the RPDA (already in use) with new BFT (Blue Force Tracker) capabilities. I think the wi-fi system will be in place soon, if it isn't already. That will extend the capabilities of the RPDA. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 A more recent and detailed article explaining why my friend says "it ain't going to happen" as planned http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/May/LandWarrior.htm Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Wouldn't any technologically competent army be able to track down the constant radio traffic going on. Ofcourse actually reading the messages isn't possible because of encryption, but tracking down the location should be. Sending messages once in 10 seconds by every soldier sounds like the enemy is going to have good situational awarness as well... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Actually, the volume is helpful in that regard. The more signals, the harder it is to focus on one and identify it specifically. The signals themselves are secure becuse they use SINCGARS technology. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Just a warning about strategypage - I often spot errors in their articles on subjects I know about. It's not inconceivable that there are errors on subjects I don't know so much about. In addition, the comment that "The Russians like Stryker so much they copied the slat armour" is just daft. The British Army has employed Slat armour on their CVR(T) and Challenger 2 and that doesn't mean that they are queing up to buy a Mowag Piranha III with a fake mustache and glasses. It's a simple exploit of a known flaw in the widely fielded RPG7 warhead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Originally posted by Drusus: Wouldn't any technologically competent army be able to track down the constant radio traffic going on. [snips]Practically none of the cheerleading for digitization I have ever seen bothers itself with even the briefest consideration of any serious EW threat. As a colleague of mine at Fort Halstead used to say, our normal assumption is that the EW threat is presented by an enemy equipped with the electronic equivalent of a sharpened mango. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 About Russian going for Slat armor, I believe it may be the other way around. I was under the impression that the U.S. design could be credited to bar armor fielded by Russia for operations in Chechnia. About Stryker upgrade story - old news. Ever since the initial worn-out fleet of Strykers was replaced with a new batch (last year? Time really flies) extra armor plate could be seen on all the vehicle photos I've seen. A bit of NEW Stryker news. Stryker Brigade's been ordered out of Mosul and south to Bagdhad. Uh oh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Originally posted by flamingknives: Just a warning about strategypage - I often spot errors in their articles on subjects I know about. It's not inconceivable that there are errors on subjects I don't know so much about. In addition, the comment that "The Russians like Stryker so much they copied the slat armour" is just daft. The British Army has employed Slat armour on their CVR(T) and Challenger 2 and that doesn't mean that they are queing up to buy a Mowag Piranha III with a fake mustache and glasses. It's a simple exploit of a known flaw in the widely fielded RPG7 warhead. I think Strategypage has a tendency to pull stuff out of their asses and post it as fact to mold their "reporting" to their own world view. Here is an interesting picture in regards to Russians copying the Stryker cage armor: http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_61.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I was working on this system in 1996 when they made the first large scale tests. I was an instructor on the equipment and software and it was crap at that time. The ones I have seen lately look like an improvement but not by much. Still too many wires and cables. Still too much junk to get in your way. The Thermal sight for the M16 was nice as were some of the IR light toys but overall the system just isn't ready for combat. These articles are the same as the guys at the Battle Lab were spewing back in '96 when they assured us that the system was ready for field trials. After the NTC rotation one thing really stood out in the OPFOR AAR which we got after we got home. The OPFOR were able to pinpoint the location of company and higher CPs with little effort because of the constant FM emmissions. Unless they have switched to neutrino emissions or something this will still be a major weakness. It doesn't matter if you can tell what you are saying, if you can find them you can drop nasty things on top of them. Then it won't matter what they were talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.