PDA

View Full Version : Google Glass Could Have A Huge Impact On Modern Warfare


MtnGoat
06-14-2014, 10:04
Google Glass Could Have A Huge Impact On Modern Warfare


http://taskandpurpose.com/can-google-glass-change-warfare/#ixzz34csVOBKp

This will be a game changer IMO. Not just with personal weapon system but all the other possibilities.

Brush Okie
06-14-2014, 10:40
Potential is great. I am not a expert by any means but is this not kind of a evolution of the HUD displays from fighter jets of the 70's. My understanding is in the late 70's and 80's etc fighters, Apache pilots etc had the display on their helmets with targeting info etc.

While I see lots of great potential what about the down side ie information overload on the individual soldier as well as feedback to commanders.

Another issue I see is the urge and ability for commanders to micromanage due to technology.

Last but not least is the electronic footprint. My idea to counter the technology is to find the electronic footprint and bomb the shit out of the area. Another tactic is a pre set mine that is detonated either my manual means via radio or set off by decting the electronics of the gee whizz system in the area. Think back to the sniff sensors of Vietnam that detected the VC but with more sophistication.

The Reaper
06-14-2014, 12:08
More fun to intercept and spoof the signals.

Kind of like our drones that our enemies now own.

TR

caretaker
06-14-2014, 16:22
I agree that augmented reality seems like it could be very useful on the battlefield even to a layman such as myself. As I understand it however Google Glass is already obsolete technology. Innovega Inc. demoed what they are calling the next generation at this year's Consumer Electronic Show. It combines the glasses with a special contact lens.

Demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5qMCl4SgVw&list=PLtEGYMIEL-tBfOd5ahRmvQ9MutlZKKnpk
And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXaO4m6AOv0
More interesting videos on the Company's website here: http://innovega-inc.com/videos.php

MtnGoat
06-15-2014, 09:41
Hell we have such a larger electronic miniature nowadays it doesn't matter IMO. Have to look at the stuff we have inside of vehicles; BFTs, RAVENs, and the number Network On The Move (OTM). Now you want to talk about dismounted systems?! We are a military living in a electronic world.

I think something like this would work great with a CROW or AWS. Coupled with the gun, tartgeting system and your eyes Iris fluctuation; we could speed up a gunners targeting. Even have multiple gunners. I don't know why they never brought "down" to the MRAPs and other vehicles the targeting system for the AH-64. IDF has great targeting system that is a heads up or AH-64 style system.

Brush Okie
06-15-2014, 10:54
Hell we have such a larger electronic miniature nowadays it doesn't matter IMO.

I was thinking dismount in say a small unit on patrol or ambush position.

I am sure there are counter measures we could take as well such as jamming or other electronic measures.

MtnGoat
06-15-2014, 17:32
I was thinking dismount in say a small unit on patrol or ambush position.

I am sure there are counter measures we could take as well such as jamming or other electronic measures.

I'm just say WOLFHOUND, let's think about just that and counter measures.

(1VB)compforce
06-15-2014, 20:10
While I see the positives, I see one GIANT negative to this type of tech. How much scrutiny is going into each engagement right now to see whether the soldier acted appropriately? How many troops have been crucified for something that was done in the heat of battle and later second-guessed by the command with all the benefit of hindsight? Do we really want a streaming, first person video of each warfighter's actions? I'm not concerned so much about the additional prosecutions for violations of ROE and such. The question that I have is "How will the fighters react knowing that every single action may be scrutinized by the command?". Regardless of whether the command actively monitors and enforces the ROE and regs on every aspect of the engagement, some soldiers will be second guessing themselves before they pull the trigger. That's going to result in casualties caused by indecision. He who hesitates is lost.

Do the benefits of this kind of tech outweigh the potential human cost and reduction in combat effectiveness?

Beyond that, tech fails. Think about the dependency on technology that soldiers have today. Take GPS. How many times have we seen soldiers that are completely incapable of using a map and compass? Land nav was a primary skill taught in Basic training when I went through. If you didn't pass the land nav course (which was very simple), you had to go back through remedial training. It wouldn't keep you from graduating, but it was certainly emphasized. Now if their batteries fail and they don't have a spare, they're done. I'm talking about the 80% of the Army that isn't combat arms. I'm sure the Infantry still does land nav and I know that SF does. What's going to happen when troops build a dependency on the tech to support their decision making and then have to work without it? Will their decisions get even slower?

I don't know the answers, but I have reservations with relying too much on tech on the battlefield. There's always a tradeoff and it's very rarely thought all the way through. I saw a drawing that one of our JAG officers had on their wall. It has a US soldier standing next to an AFG insurgent fighter and pointed out the difference in their equipment (and the costs of the equipment) and had a caption, paraphrased, We've been here for how many years and they are still fighting? Tech superiority helps, but fundamentals win the fight. If we keep sacrificing fundamentals to gain tech proficiency, can we keep winning the fights?

SigmaAaron
07-01-2014, 19:02
I strongly agree with MtnGoat on the MRAPS Gunner; but D.C. seems more interested in the video application to stick their noses in. As far as a dismount it seems illogical to keep adding headgear, in training i can see, in a CZ it would need to be implemented into eyepro.