Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gordonjames62 t1_j604vks wrote

If you want to be the leader in a new field, you have to actually lead. This is why it is difficult to do this. It hasn't actually been done before and there is no one to copy.

Here is some of what you need for a start:

  • A decent battery that can work in the field with long battery life and low weight / danger / cumbersomeness.

  • A decent headset that allows good situational awareness and field of view when off, and not too intrusive when on.

  • Something that can be worn with a traditional helmet

  • something that does not block hearing (but possibly does noise cancellation in noisy environments to improve communication)

  • We hope it would communicate with not yet invented hardware (to give ammo counts like in a FPS game)

  • we hope it will scan for 360 degree IR and 360 degree visible.

  • we hope it would scan for RF signals like friendly communication AND to give directional info about unfriendly RF sources.

  • we hope it can network with other field devices to share visual and other tactical data.

These are just basics that we might want, and we want it now, and we want it to be idiot proof. Then we want it in a package that is no more cumbersome than current communication tools.

The bar is really high.

It will take a lot of R&D to get there.

15

Skastrik t1_j6369en wrote

The problem is trying to achieve all of this at the same time, they haven't tried to take the approach to achieve one or two things and then work long time to add all the other features as they are ready.

It's always an all or nothing approach.

2

gordonjames62 t1_j636rvr wrote

the bar for success is so high.

The amount of R&D required is huge.

Just the secure communication encryption will be a nightmare.

2

Reasonable_Ticket_84 t1_j63i3ou wrote

>Just the secure communication encryption will be a nightmare.

Uh dude, that's been invented 3000 times over. Military radios are standard tech from Thales, Harris and General Dynamics. Any new equipment on a soldier that needs a secure data link actually just plugs into the existing radios.

You are making an assumption they want the headset to do everything, they absolutely don't and the details on those plans have been fairly public.

https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Program-Offices/Project-Manager-Integrated-Visual-Augmentation-System/

​

It's just an iteration of the Nett Warrior project and it reuses most of it.

https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Equipment/Equipment-Portfolio/Project-Manager-Integrated-Visual-Augmentation-System-Portfolio/Nett-Warrior/

2

gordonjames62 t1_j63j1at wrote

There is a difference between being able to decrypt communication, and being able to disrupt communication.

0

Reasonable_Ticket_84 t1_j63m29g wrote

Again, you are speaking out of your ass.

Military radios already exist to deal with secure encryption and resisting jamming. These are in fact standard issue soldiers and integrate with a whole family of equipment in plug and play fashion. And they continue to create newer and newer generations of radio that become standard issue pretty quickly because RF engineering itself is pretty mature and much of it is just silicon design catching up and allowing better processing capabilities.

https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/falcon-radio-product-line

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/defence-and-security/radio-communications/land-communications/tactical-radios/anprc-148-0

2

Hypnot0ad t1_j63qqiz wrote

Also important: if a unit gets lost/captured the enemy shouldn’t be able to access all your network/comms.

2