It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

american soldiers of the future

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
ok, who dosnt like him????
by saying that your starting people to "not like" you.

BTW calm down, ffs





If you like him,


The rest of us got different stories to tell.

[edit on 10-4-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]




posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Does anybody have a tentative date for the fielding of the Land Warrior program?

I feel like they need to get Land Warrior in as soon as possible. Especially with things like urban warfare, they're gonna need some major edge in technology to survive.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I think they are already using Land Warrior but not in large numbers as it is just begging to be fielded. Here is what I got form Global Security.

The first operational test of the LW system was conducted in September 2000 with a platoon of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. The target date for fielding the final version of the LW System -- an even more advanced model, smaller and more affordable -- is 2004.



In order to be accepted by the Army, the Land Warrior System must not increase the Soldier’s Load (currently at 92.5 lbs) in close combat. The LW System as initially fielded in FY04 must weigh no more than 84 lbs. Of this, the electronics weigh approximately 12 lbs. Future versions of the LW will significantly reduce the overall system weight.



Nearly 5,000 Land Warrior systems were to be fielded by the end of 1999. First Unit Equipped (first system in the hands of soldiers) was scheduled for between 2000 and 2001. The Army is currently planning on contracting for 34,000 systems plus spares. The total systems cost is estimated to be approximately $70,000 each in FY96 dollars.


Land Warrior

Also SweatMonica whose "us"? Currently I see only you talking about not liking me


[edit on 10-4-2005 by WestPoint23]

[edit on 10-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Wish the MOD got such shiny kit....

Is this going to turn into another anti-westy thread?
One thing I have to ask about that gear is how long do you think until the general squaddie has it...



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Also SweatMonica whose "we"? Currently I see only you talking about not liking me


[edit on 10-4-2005 by WestPoint23]


We is we. You is you.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Wish the MOD got such shiny kit....

Is this going to turn into another anti-westy thread?
One thing I have to ask about that gear is how long do you think until the general squaddie has it...


Well you can thank WestPoint for all the attention he's garnered...

Considering how long the Land Warrior program is taking, I say the REALLY advanced stuff is still far off.

The interesting thing about this stuff is that much of it is geared towards urban warfare, despite the fact there's really no viable way to avoid mass casualties in urban warfare.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Honestly where are these "mass" casualties, our soldiers have been fighting in an urban environment for 2 years and we have lost about 1500 men, in conventional wars we have lost more than that in one week. I value every single life lost but to call it a "mass" casualty in not correct.
I think were doing ok considering everything were trying to do, but I think it can be better and I hope Land Warrior helps in urban combat.


[edit on 10-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Honestly where are these "mass" casualties, our soldiers have been fighting in an urban environment for 2 years and we have lost about 1500 men, in conventional wars we have lost more than that in one week. I value every single life lost but to call it a "mass" casualty in not correct.
I think were doing ok considering everything were trying to do, but I think it can be better and I hope Land Warrior helps in urban combat.


[edit on 10-4-2005 by WestPoint23]


(Shakes head)

This is one of the things I'm talking about. I never said there have been mass casualties. I'm saying there potentially will be and most likely in the future, when we are in far deadlier situations than Iraq, there will be a norm of 40% casualties.

In fact, Iraq is nothing. Aside from Somalia, we have yet to see what real, vicious urban warfare is all about.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I think you all pay too much attention to Science Fiction and not enough to the Psychology/Strategy of war.

Who wants to read the newspaper headline "100 Robots Killed Yesterday in War"? How will this help a President prove his might and power? Who would care if the US loses 1500 robots and Iraq loses 3,000 robots in a fight over Bagdad???

We don't care how much "machinery" is destroyed at war, only lives. And once the US has robots, how long until the rest of the world follows? Only a few years. How long does it take the rest of the world to keep up with our technology now? Wake up. Our "secrets" are sold within weeks and duplicated elsewhere.

You will never win a Nation by destroying it's robots. Not even if it's Detroit and the car industry.

You need to quit reading reading SciFi and catch up with the reality of war. Sure the Pentagon is discussing robots, just like they did in the 70's. It's called politics, strategy, bluffing, etc.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

I'm saying there potentially will be and most likely in the future, when we are in far deadlier situations than Iraq, there will be a norm of 40% casualties.


Yeah, you and your textbook figures. Just like they though we would have 40% casualties in Falluja. You may dispute the figures but we killed over 1200+ insurgents while loosing like 50-60 soldiers. If you think fighting 1200 insurgents in a city is not intense urban combat then I don't know what is.


In fact, Iraq is nothing. Aside from Somalia, we have yet to see what real, vicious urban warfare is all about.


Also in Somalia we lost 18 SF personnel, do you know how many Somali's they killed?
I’m not saying that urban combat is easy I’m just saying the textbook figure of 40% is incorrect.

Qwas who is going to have robots as sophisticated as ours? Perhaps some of the modern military's will, but two modern counties almost never fight each other. So I doubt we will see robot Vs. robot action. The headlines will be more like “10 U.S. robots kill 100 enemy soldiers” that will just kill the morale of the other country.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah, you and your textbook figures. Just like they though we would have 40% casualties in Falluja. You may dispute the figures but we killed over 1200+ insurgents while loosing like 50-60 soldiers. If you think fighting 1200 insurgents in a city is not intense urban combat then I don't know what is.

Also in Somalia we lost 18 SF personnel, do you know how many Somali's they killed?
I’m not saying that urban combat is easy I’m just saying the textbook figure of 40% is incorrect.


So what you are saying is, since we haven't had 40% casualties yet, it won't happen and is wrong? That hardly makes sense.


The percentage of losses is not necessarily in direct proportion with the kill ratio. It's also not surprising why the opposition lost more people. They were on the offensive, WILDLY offensive. The defenders found ways to protect themselves and had powerful weapons and support from the ground and above. When facing inferior enemies, you might not always win, but you will kill more of them.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
The thing about this type of tech its going to require a huge investment. Likely these troops will be like F-16s on legs in terms of cost. So I think in 2020 we will see stuff like this used on small teams groups like the SEALs, Delta Force.

If half this stuff comes to pass even small groups of these soldiers will be something to be feared on the battle field. They will also have a huge psychological impact on people.

The goal is to make our troops so deadly nobody even wants to fight them.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The goal is to make our troops so deadly nobody even wants to fight them.


But as we know, that never works out.


Another thing to remember about a lot of these systems is that they are in inception phase. Thus, what we see in 2020 may be totally different from what we see they are making now.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
QWas

That is exactly the point i was trying to make. What good is killing each others robots going to do? It would just be a massive waste of our tax dollars.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Well you can thank WestPoint for all the attention he's garnered...

So?
Sorry but that doesnt justify anything..


Considering how long the Land Warrior program is taking, I say the REALLY advanced stuff is still far off.

I agree but some of the dumbed down stuff might not be so far off.


The interesting thing about this stuff is that much of it is geared towards urban warfare, despite the fact there's really no viable way to avoid mass casualties in urban warfare.

I disagree with this, better armour and information gathering systems will definately help.
Weapon mods will greatly help by being able to "out gun" the enemy.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

So what you are saying is, since we haven't had 40% casualties yet, it won't happen and is wrong? That hardly makes sense.


No I'm saying that every time we fight in an urban combat situation we shouldn't automatically think were going to loose 40% of our forces.


But as we know, that never works out


Yeah... well if it doesn't scare them they will die anyway.


Another thing to remember about a lot of these systems is that they are in inception phase. Thus, what we see in 2020 may be totally different from what we see they are making now.


Sure the suit and the gadgets might be or look different but the over all idea of their concepts will still be there in 2020.


That is exactly the point i was trying to make. What good is killing each others robots going to do? It would just be a massive waste of our tax dollars.


I though I explained this to you?



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah... well if it doesn't scare them they will die anyway.


Not necessarily. Probably, but we could easily die anyway as well.

But of course, we must always hope that killing people won't be necessary...



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
So?
Sorry but that doesnt justify anything..


Why sorry? I don't feel bad about anything.

Really, what's with the sorrys on this message board?


Anyway, here's something else to chew on. Do you think all this stuff will be integrated with Force XXI or will Force XXI be expanded/revised or replaced with something else to integrate with this new soldier stuff?

[edit on 11-4-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Why sorry? I don't feel bad about anything.

Showing respect.....I am also sorry I dissagree with you because I respect you as a member...


Really, what's with the sorrys on this message board?

Sometimes marks of respect or of pity or of sorrow.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Why sorry? I don't feel bad about anything.

Showing respect.....I am also sorry I dissagree with you because I respect you as a member...


Really, what's with the sorrys on this message board?

Sometimes marks of respect or of pity or of sorrow.


I respect you a lot too devil. You're one of my favorites on ATS.


Personally, I like it when people disagree with me or even when I'm wrong. There's always something new to learn.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join