Land Warrior Needs Work, Soldiers Say

[Tom Odom]

I first saw the system almost 8 years ago at AWE 2000.

My fiirst question was "Why?" and the answer came back largely as "Because we want to spend money on Soldiers."

My next question was what are the various signatures: thermal, IR, electronic. Thermal was easy" the batteries got so hot the soldiers needed pads to keep from getting burned. The others were more problematic to which I asked, "Does no one recognize that you are making "stealthy" infantry unstealthy?"

Those were minor pints compared, however, to the original "Why?" Every Soldier does not need pull down windows with satellite imagery and a display to watch. I guess the ultimate expression of this was when senior officers lauding the system remarked,"that for the first time when an infantry leader stood, all of his unit stood in unison". Tellingly these leaders were tankers (not CAV); what infantry leader wants or values his team, squad, platoon. or company's ability to stand in unison?

These may all seem like minor or sily gripes but they go to the mindset that command depends on absolute control, which is the antithesis of intiative and adaptability.

Best

Tom

[MattC86]

I first saw the system almost 8 years ago at AWE 2000.

My fiirst question was "Why?" and the answer came back largely as "Because we want to spend money on Soldiers."

My next question was what are the various signatures: thermal, IR, electronic. Thermal was easy" the batteries got so hot the soldiers needed pads to keep from getting burned. The others were more problematic to which I asked, "Does no one recognize that you are making "stealthy" infantry unstealthy?"

Those were minor pints compared, however, to the original "Why?" Every eSoldier does not need pull down windows with satellite imagery and a display to watch. I guess the ultimate expression of this was when senior officers lauding the system remarked,"that for the first time when an infantry leader stood, all of his unit stood in unison". Tellingly these leaders were tankers (not CAV); what infantry leader wants or values his team, squad, platoon. or company's ability to stand in unison?

These may all seem like minor or sily gripes but they go to the mindset that command depends on absolute control, which is the antithesis of intiative and adaptability.

Best

Tom

I, for one, don't find those gripes at all minor. I feel if you can't answer the "why?" about equipment procurement program, you should not spend the money!

Considering soldiers on the ground already are carrying many times what our enemies carry into battle, I don't think we should burden them with a lot of extra stuff that slows them down even more, takes their eyes and focus off their rifle sights and the surrounding environment (ESPECIALLY in an urban COIN environment) , and lights them up on a thermal like a Christmas tree. Too much wiring, computers, and comms also make them a massive SIGINT target, doesn't it? (Although I have no idea what, if any, capacities AQ or any other opponents have in that area.)

And I also agree on the fear of total control for commanders - we emphasize adaptability and subordinate initiative, history has effectively borne it out, and yet each new toy is a way for leaders at different levels to maintain complete control (and micro-managing ability).

That's not to say brigade commanders are moving platoons around from a helicopter during battle a la Vietnam - I wouldn't know if they were and I've heard nothing to suggest they are - but as long as technological gadgets provide the ability for commanders to micromanage and exercise absolute control, the temptation will probably be too great for at least a few.

Matt

[selil]

These may all seem like minor or sily gripes but they go to the mindset that command depends on absolute control, which is the antithesis of intiative and adaptability.

I can't remember where I saw it.. But, I remember seeing either a D-Day/Omaha Beach picture, or one of the other landings. Mounds of equipment was left on the beach and the caption on the picture was abandoned equipment by infantry as they moved inland. Equipment that does not do the job is rapidly disposed of no matter the needs of the service. The human in the combat environment is part of a system and system themselves. It is imperative to understand that the soldier is not a "cog" in a machine.

[Ron Humphrey]

Technology has always been a hard sell to those who may need it and possibly too easy a sell to those who don't.

Asking the right questions at the beginning is definitely important but just as much so might be remembering what the actual mission it's supposed to achieve is.

Just as in business it is important to review the entire project from start to finish before even getting started, it should be that much more so when its related to equipping soldiers.

As with anything else though don't blame the Technology itself, it is a tool to fit a need, what the need actually is and how to fill it is all left to human interaction which is something we really have to work on.

[Rob Thornton]

I've got a buddy who is working as a A/PM on land warrior - he's a straight shooter - we were Rifle PLs & AT PLs in the same companies & XOs in the same BN in the 101st together and staff and company commanders in 1/25th SBCT. He tells me that many of the soldiers using the kit really like it - its helped them do their job better. He - goes over and embeds with the unit - so he's done Iraq as a CO CDR once, and he's back over on his third trip as the A/PM - he told me the initial system was not suited to the soldier - so they let the soldiers tell them what they wanted - and guess what - it started to get used.

Now, I've mentioned this before about digital tech at the BN & Below level - but I've found it very useful myself - both in training and in combat. I was about as on the outside looking in as you could be on the battlefield as en embedded advisor - having digital comms - such as BFT made coordinating KWs and other types of help far easier - particularly when the FM nets that others are monitoring are choked up.

If we can provide the soldier something that is small enough and light enough to provide us his location and perhaps some information on his vitals - we should absolutely do it. Isolation is a MF - and #### happens - when an 1114 hit a big IED it blew this guy right out of the truck and down into a gulley choked with weeds - knocked his ass clean out. If somebody would not have seen him - they'd probably not have found him to stop some real bleeding. Another big thing that BFT like tech has provided us is a better chance to not misidentify a friendly as an enemy - at the platform level. If we can get that down to the individual - I'm for that too - I've seen folks on the same team shoot at each other - some were lucky, others not so much. People behind cover, or masked by walls don't always look so friendly - and #### just happens.

I'll gladly tell an anxious staff officer or even a higher echelon CDR to stand by while I sort stuff out, or if he's totally off base and won't listen then I'll ignore him. I'll gladly make that trade (between having to be more abrasive on the radio & not having a useful tool) if it helps me do my job better, and get my folks through the mission. The inability to see down to the individual will not stop a pain in the ass from being a pain in the ass. Now having said all that I want my tech small, reliable, I don't want tumors when I retire from running it while on AD, I want a say in how it comes, and I want to be useful, I want it mostly wireless - I don't want it to take any longer putting on my IBA. I want it user friendly - meaning I don't want to have to make more time to train on it then I would my MBITR - etc. I think the PM/APM for Land Warrior are trying to do this.

Best , Rob

[Ron Humphrey]

I've got a buddy who is working as a A/PM on land warrior - he's a straight shooter - we were Rifle PLs & AT PLs in the same companies & XOs in the same BN in the 101st together and staff and company commanders in 1/25th SBCT. He tells me that many of the soldiers using the kit really like it - its helped them do their job better. He - goes over and embeds with the unit - so he's done Iraq as a CO CDR once, and he's back over on his third trip as the A/PM - he told me the initial system was not suited to the soldier - so they let the soldiers tell them what they wanted - and guess what - it started to get used.


Best , Rob

That good to hear

[Cavguy]

If we can provide the soldier something that is small enough and light enough to provide us his location and perhaps some information on his vitals - we should absolutely do it.

Rob,

Concur. I made the same tech argument in another thread. The discussion seems to be about two issues - the usefulness of the tool itself, and how it is employed.

From what I have read above and the demo I got, Land Warrior has some work to do before it's widely fieldable. That said, having a infantry SL or PL be able to instantly access his current position on a projected map (not always easy), access digital images of his AO (1m Imagery), etc. are good teams. I always thought FBCB2 was worthless for enemy tracking in its current form, but a godsend for friendly tracking. Knowing exactly where you are and everyone else is nothing short of revolutionary, and being able to communicate via text is sometimes much easier than FM. As I stated to Ken, it removes a lot of radio traffic from earlier eras, and you know you're getting an accurate position. (The greybeards here can't tell me they haven't been lost in a training exercise before, and wished they could dial up their 10 digit grid).

Anyway, the tool's effacy is in its cost/benefit - weight, complexity, tng, etc. BFT took off because its benefits far outweigh its costs. Just because land warrior is heavy and cumbersome today doesn't mean it will be so in ten years. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The employment is a separate issue. I have sense the most resistance from the prior generation to this tech on SWJ. We all heard of the helicopter generals of Vietnam, and this tech allows even greater micromanagement. The antidote to that is command culture, policies, and training. As I stated, I never experienced micromanagement through digital tools. It may have been so when the tools were first fielded, but today I would say the ROE of digital has been worked out, everyone seems to know their lane. Conversely, higher now has a MUCH better picture of the situation the lower unit is in, and can allocate assets to his fight quicker and with more precision.

An example, in Ramadi whenever a unit got in contact, I would be able to figure the 10 digit grid of the enemy through UAV's and other tools. I would go ahead and get air and artillery on standby to support that unit without a request. If the unit on the ground asked for it, the guns were already laid and the 9-line sent to the aircraft, and support was instantaneous, shaving minutes off of response times. In the old days we'd have to wait for the unit to provide the info. Because of UAV's and digital systems, I already had it, and only had to adjust/confirm the grid with the unit. Note we didn't decide to employ a weapon for the commander on the ground, we just lined up the support for whatever calls he would make, and offered that assistance to them if needed.

Besides, in a fight, it's easy to ignore an anxious staff officer or overbearing commander who isn't on the ground, as said before.

[Ken White]

First:

"(The greybeards here can't tell me they haven't been lost in a training exercise before, and wished they could dial up their 10 digit grid)."

I can honestly tell you I haven't been but I have been in units where the Commander was

Why would one want a ten digit grid -- the map is not that accurate and without the map the Grid is borderline useless. Given any one of a bunch of smart munitions, I can understand eight just 'cause the GPS is saying (hopefully) the same thing to everyone -- but ten???

"We all heard of the helicopter generals of Vietnam, and this tech allows even greater micromanagement. The antidote to that is command culture, policies, and training."

You've identified the proximate cause of angst for us old folks but I'd also suggest that peacetime training experience is a contributor.

I hear what you're saying about the rectifying factors but all us old fogeys are inclined to look at the dark side of human nature and prefer positive and mechanical lockouts to prevent even mild and infrequent abuses. Mostly because the abuses tend to happen at the worst possible times and after fairly lengthy, multi day or week periods of extensive combat when nearly everyone is totally exhausted. Hopefully, you're correct and the coming generation will not micro manage.

I also agree with Rob and you on the fact that if you do get interference at the wrong time, you can and should cut it off. We've all had to do that on occasion and fortunately doing that generally isn't too great a distraction.

[Cavguy]

First:I can honestly tell you I haven't been but I have been in units where the Commander was

Having started with 19D's my standard execuse was that we were conducting recon of lateral routes or dominant terrain ..... scouts are never lost.

Why would one want a ten digit grid -- the map is not that accurate and without the map the Grid is borderline useless. Given any one of a bunch of smart munitions, I can understand eight just 'cause the GPS is saying (hopefully) the same thing to everyone -- but ten???

Digital imagery, 1m or better, is your friend. 1:25000 and 1:50000 are not used for tactical ops in urban. Now standard down to squad level in BFT, and my guys carried digital images of all of their AO with them hardcopy printed from Falconview. We numbered the houses, so if they called it on the net we could use Falconview to figure the eight digit to the exact house they were getting fired at from. We would then ask what cardinal direction side of the house, and adjust it to a ten digit, required for GPS munition drops. The ten digit over the 8 digit is the difference of taking out the front or back side of the structure with the impact. The newer GPS munitions have smaller warheads to reduce collateral damage, and thus won't bring down a building. (unless you want it to)

[120mm]

Why would one want a ten digit grid -- the map is not that accurate and without the map the Grid is borderline useless. Given any one of a bunch of smart munitions, I can understand eight just 'cause the GPS is saying (hopefully) the same thing to everyone -- but ten??? You've identified the proximate cause of angst for us old folks but I'd also suggest that peacetime training experience is a contributor.

That is one of my major pet peeves, right now. Typical soldier knows nothing about land nav; cannot tell you what the 10 digits stand for, and in critical situations, cannot break it down to a 4 digit grid. They just keep reading back the 10 numbers in the display. ####, it's like we've BECOME the faceless, non-thinking, automans of the Soviet Army.

I wonder if the GPS-makers KNOW how completely useless, and in fact impossible the 10 digit grid is, in order to work with.

Just got done with a CPX where the RTOs and even junior officers up to CPT level had no clue about map-reading or land nav. Other than to read the magic 10 numbers from the plugger.