5 ms·

There's a very obvious analogy here that proves you wrong: nvgs

wcarss 6y ago
for anyone else who was confused and about to google it: Night Vision Goggles[1]. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device
remarkEon 6y ago
His take is a little cyclical, but it's not wrong necessarily. For every set of PVS-14s there were 3 or 4 little pieces of "tech" that were utterly useless.
- MichaelMcG 6y ago
  Not just useless, but a major PITA when the next inventory rolls around and you have to find the individual sub-components of that "tech" when no one has any idea of what it looks like because it's never been used and ultimately serves no purpose. Then if it somehow falls through the cracks, it's on the commanders shoulders to pay for that piece of high-speed unused tech that the lobbyist swore would revolutionize the battle-space.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    I actually met some of the contractors who were "in-country", as they called it, to train and re-train folks on how to use all these sensors. While I was at KAF, I had dinner with one of them and very clearly explained that the equipment he was representing was completely useless to my platoon and me and the rest of the PLs in the company ordered our guys to not worry about it and toss it back in the container. He was fully aware of the feedback that infantry folks had for this stuff, which was really eyeopening to me for how the defense contracting world really works.
- munk-a 6y ago
  Is one in five such a bad ratio for useful innovation? It might speak to there being some problems with state-side testing of devices for appropriateness on the battlefield but a 20% success rate of cutting edge equipment seems pretty good. Infantry folk are probably going to use the useful bits and pack away the useless ones - that feedback will eventually trickle back to fulfillment and the kit will be updated. Also - I have a lot of faith in infantrymen finding really creative uses for tech that folks in the lab might disregard.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    You make a good point. I don't know, it might be. I'm thinking of all the absolutely bonkers things that all sides in WWII came up with that were obviously expensive to develop but never really saw usefulness.
nordsieck 6y ago
> There's a very obvious analogy here that proves you wrong: nvgs Another example is red dot / holographic gun sights. As an aside, while I agree with you broadly on NVGs, my experience with PVS-7's is that they're basically not much better than naked eyesight (I hope the more modern NVGs are better). The thing that makes NVGs really good is either IR lights or IR lasers.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  I think the difference though is all those examples require no more understanding of technology than how to operate a TV remote. Push some buttons, laser goes on. Even zeroing a holo sight is trivially easy. And yes, modern NVGs are a whole different world from PVS-7s.
  - ahepp 6y ago
    I would think you could get a lot of utility from the hololens without actively operating anything. The potential for passive blue force tracking alone seems pretty awesome to me (but you'd certainly know better)
beeandapenguin 6y ago
Another example is optical zooming. Companies like Mojo Vision have already built a contact lens prototype that could power “superhuman” traits like this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pV52DF5IrEc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pV52DF5IrEc

for anyone else who was confused and about to google it: Night Vision Goggles[1]. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-vision_device

remarkEon 6y ago

His take is a little cyclical, but it's not wrong necessarily. For every set of PVS-14s there were 3 or 4 little pieces of "tech" that were utterly useless.

MichaelMcG 6y ago
Not just useless, but a major PITA when the next inventory rolls around and you have to find the individual sub-components of that "tech" when no one has any idea of what it looks like because it's never been used and ultimately serves no purpose. Then if it somehow falls through the cracks, it's on the commanders shoulders to pay for that piece of high-speed unused tech that the lobbyist swore would revolutionize the battle-space.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  I actually met some of the contractors who were "in-country", as they called it, to train and re-train folks on how to use all these sensors. While I was at KAF, I had dinner with one of them and very clearly explained that the equipment he was representing was completely useless to my platoon and me and the rest of the PLs in the company ordered our guys to not worry about it and toss it back in the container. He was fully aware of the feedback that infantry folks had for this stuff, which was really eyeopening to me for how the defense contracting world really works.
munk-a 6y ago
Is one in five such a bad ratio for useful innovation? It might speak to there being some problems with state-side testing of devices for appropriateness on the battlefield but a 20% success rate of cutting edge equipment seems pretty good. Infantry folk are probably going to use the useful bits and pack away the useless ones - that feedback will eventually trickle back to fulfillment and the kit will be updated. Also - I have a lot of faith in infantrymen finding really creative uses for tech that folks in the lab might disregard.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  You make a good point. I don't know, it might be. I'm thinking of all the absolutely bonkers things that all sides in WWII came up with that were obviously expensive to develop but never really saw usefulness.

nordsieck 6y ago

> There's a very obvious analogy here that proves you wrong: nvgs Another example is red dot / holographic gun sights. As an aside, while I agree with you broadly on NVGs, my experience with PVS-7's is that they're basically not much better than naked eyesight (I hope the more modern NVGs are better). The thing that makes NVGs really good is either IR lights or IR lasers.

remarkEon 6y ago
I think the difference though is all those examples require no more understanding of technology than how to operate a TV remote. Push some buttons, laser goes on. Even zeroing a holo sight is trivially easy. And yes, modern NVGs are a whole different world from PVS-7s.
- ahepp 6y ago
  I would think you could get a lot of utility from the hololens without actively operating anything. The potential for passive blue force tracking alone seems pretty awesome to me (but you'd certainly know better)

beeandapenguin 6y ago

Another example is optical zooming. Companies like Mojo Vision have already built a contact lens prototype that could power “superhuman” traits like this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pV52DF5IrEc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pV52DF5IrEc