Objective Force Warrior: Star Wars on the Ground

[thedrifter]

06-30-2003

Objective Force Warrior: Star Wars on the Ground



By Roger Moore



For all of you fretting about the Strategic Defense Initiative, Star Wars and shooting missiles from space, relax we?re going to do it all from the ground.



On Friday, June 13, 2003 a report in The Washington Post announced that the Army had awarded a potential $3 billion contract to General Dynamics Corporation to outfit ?the soldier of the future.? That future starts in 2006 with the first complete unit being outfitted by 2010 with the cost per uniform estimated at a whopping $10-30,000. Lt. Gen. John M. Riggs, who is leading the Army's modernization efforts, said in a quote to the Washington Post:



?Army transformation is founded on the principle of networking soldiers with weapon systems, vehicles, and aircraft to create a cohesive, integrated fighting team with overwhelming and devastating force of action,"



For those of you following the ?Transformation? or ?Revolution in Military Affairs? debate, is this another case of equipment before people?



There is no doubt that to meet future threats we need to modernize our forces.



In a DefenseWatch Special Report from June 10, 2003 titled, ?Small Arms and Individual Equipment Lessons Learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom,? many of the tactical level modernization and improvement concerns were chronicled by a team from the Army Special Operations Battle Lab.



A number of these concerns have been addressed Reviewing in the program requirements of the Objective Force/Land Warrior Program(s).



In February 2003, National Defense Magazine featured a key item to the Objective Force Warrior component of the ?Future Combat System.? The MICH or Modular Integrated Communications Helmet developed at the Natick Soldier Systems Center in conjunction with the Special Operations Forces Special Projects Team.



The MICH is designed to incorporate, individual/small unit communications, GPS tracking and optical enhancements such as infrared, night vision and real-time situation displays.



Soldiers and Marines have reported problems trying to engage the enemy with a combat load distributed over poorly design integrated MOLLE gear, Interceptor Body Armor, Kevlar/PASGT (Personnel Armor System Ground Troops) Helmet.



Quoted in the same article, Richard Elder, a former Army Ranger, and Project Manager for the MICH said, "This helmet has already saved lives during combat. Users have been shot in the head and survived with the ability to fight on. There are no guarantees, but it is definitely the safest headwear to date."



Additionally, the helmet has been tested and approved by Special Operations Command for "slow-impact" protection and use with motorcycles and ATV's.



According to the Post, ?the program also aims to cut the weight of the equipment carried by a soldier by 50 percent, to 50 pounds. Body armor would be lighter, and unmanned vehicles, known as mules, would carry supplies, said Dutch DeGay, a program engineer. "Can you imagine traversing the mountains of Afghanistan with 100 pounds on your back?" he said.?



I was taught early in my military career that you carry what you need to survive.



The more beans, bullets and water the better. Trusting a computer slaved vehicle to carry your survival gear and combat load doesn?t strike me as especially wise.



The Sensors & Communication (C4ISR) Vision statement also gives me a reason to pause.



When our enemies design a counter or detection unit to this, I can already see soldiers being pinpointed with GPS accuracy or "jammed" so that they lose situational awareness and unit connectivity. The ONLY way to compensate for the loss of our "technological superiority" is through SUPERIOR training and frankly you just don't hear much talk of that in most of the services.



Another risk I can see here is the ?de-humanization? of troops.



Watching pictures of the CENTCOM war room with their ?seas? of computer screens on some recent television specials, it?s not hard to imagine that the further we go with this ?ultimate soldier? project, the leadership disconnect between higher headquarters and individuals has the potential to destroy small unit leadership and soldiering skills, again by over-reliance on technology.



The next major problem is the Power Vision. "72-hour continuous autonomous team operations, high-density,low-weight/volume, self-generating/re-generating, reliable, safe power source/system."



I can already see units being ambushed and torn-apart while they have to shutdown to charge their batteries.



The conflicting positives and negatives noted in this program are actually quite impressive.



Individual and small unit level communications/intelligence, medical sensor information, reduced weight, improved protection and hopefully improved fighting capability.



Plainly, we're defining our vision of the battlefield of the future but suppose Hamas, Al-Qaeda, FARC or some other as of yet un-named group has a different vision.



Make sure those helmet optics don't come in "rosy-red" vision.



Roger Moore is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at rmoore_dw@yahoo.com.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c....0901291358297


Sempers,

Roger