3 ms·

I agree with all of this. I'll add one more: so much of what platoon leaders do now is teach about technology. There's only so many hours in the day for traini

I agree with all of this. I'll add one more: so much of what platoon leaders do now is teach about technology. There's only so many hours in the day for training, and (even back in 2013!) the load was starting to cause deficiency in basic combat tasks. We just didn't have the time between all the requirements to get everyone proficient in the myriad of sensor tech we ended up carrying. Plus, if it's possible to break something believe me a Private will figure out how to do it. >What happens if your guys accidentally switch headsets after lunch? This right here is a question I hope they're thinking about. In an actual fight, you may need to pick up gear off the ground. What happens if you can't, because "authentication"?

Diederich 6y ago
> myriad of sensor tech we ended up carrying At that time, did you feel like that tech was useful?
- remarkEon 6y ago
  No, and after a month or so I told everyone to drop it and put it back in the storage container where it sat for the rest of the deployment. There were some exceptions to this (some IED-defeat devices, for example).
chrisseaton 6y ago
> What happens if you can't, because "authentication"? Aren't your radios already using cryptographic fills? What do you think the difference is?
- remarkEon 6y ago
  It totally depends on how authentication would be handled for the headset device. If it's handled like it is for radios, where fills are added on a regular cycle and anyone can pick up and use the device, it's probably fine. If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea. Lol well why would we do that? Just inventing random problems at this point.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      It isn't a "random problem". It's a legitimate question about the design principles that are being used here. Is the headset "dumb" and just shows the same HUD view for everyone, or is it custom to the soldier's position in the formation? We don't know, but it's a question to think about that has actual implications for how something like this could be used or even implemented.
    - ectopod 6y ago
      God forbid anyone would imagine how this would this work. I wonder which scenario is more plausible, the one you responded to, or the one linked below? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652386
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        Well let's get it into troops' hands and give it a go and find out!
        ectopod 6y ago
        I take your point, but I think you're unreasonably optimistic. It's worth a try, but $22 billion? On the other hand, maybe you're right. We're both British. What do we care if the US government spunks all this money up the wall? The only downside is if they sell it to the MOD before it's working.
- kodah 6y ago
  I carried around the device that filled crypto for radios. Most people don't know how to use them and don't understand how to do a basic function check with them. It takes someone who has taken a class in receiving data with them and probably a patient Gunny who has been doing this stuff way too long.

Diederich 6y ago

> myriad of sensor tech we ended up carrying At that time, did you feel like that tech was useful?

remarkEon 6y ago
No, and after a month or so I told everyone to drop it and put it back in the storage container where it sat for the rest of the deployment. There were some exceptions to this (some IED-defeat devices, for example).

chrisseaton 6y ago

> What happens if you can't, because "authentication"? Aren't your radios already using cryptographic fills? What do you think the difference is?

remarkEon 6y ago
It totally depends on how authentication would be handled for the headset device. If it's handled like it is for radios, where fills are added on a regular cycle and anyone can pick up and use the device, it's probably fine. If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea. Lol well why would we do that? Just inventing random problems at this point.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    It isn't a "random problem". It's a legitimate question about the design principles that are being used here. Is the headset "dumb" and just shows the same HUD view for everyone, or is it custom to the soldier's position in the formation? We don't know, but it's a question to think about that has actual implications for how something like this could be used or even implemented.
  - ectopod 6y ago
    God forbid anyone would imagine how this would this work. I wonder which scenario is more plausible, the one you responded to, or the one linked below? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652386
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Well let's get it into troops' hands and give it a go and find out!
      - ectopod 6y ago
        I take your point, but I think you're unreasonably optimistic. It's worth a try, but $22 billion? On the other hand, maybe you're right. We're both British. What do we care if the US government spunks all this money up the wall? The only downside is if they sell it to the MOD before it's working.
kodah 6y ago
I carried around the device that filled crypto for radios. Most people don't know how to use them and don't understand how to do a basic function check with them. It takes someone who has taken a class in receiving data with them and probably a patient Gunny who has been doing this stuff way too long.