9 ms·

From a linked article; “Microsoft has been awarded a massive contract to supply the US Army with more than 120,000 augmented reality headsets, MSNBC reports.

by zaroth 4y ago

From a linked article; “Microsoft has been awarded a massive contract to supply the US Army with more than 120,000 augmented reality headsets, MSNBC reports. The contract, amounting to about $21.88 billion over ten years, follows a 2018 contract to build prototypes of the Army's Integrated Visual Augmented System (IVAS). The new contract will involve building working production versions of the system — a deal that stands to change the face of ground combat.” Absurdity. $180k per headset delivered? Did they mean $21.88mm?! Meanwhile DoD is giving Elon shit for asking to get paid for ongoing Starlink service in Ukraine, which has fundamentally changed the way they engage Russian troops and combat positions on the front lines.

digdugdirk 4y ago
Keep in mind that this was not the completion of the contract. This was an initial evaluation of an early prototype, with nearly a decade of development time left before the final production version.
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  The biggest Issue i've seen is eye fatigue from changing focal points between virutal and real items as well as stationary objects locked to the displays. It's been a while since i've seen some of the tech but the best way i can put it is stare at the center of your tv screen, don't move your head, only move your eyes. That feeling of strain is what is amplified. I think it's going to need to be a more gradual phase in of the tech rather than putting all the info on display they were trying.
katmannthree 4y ago
Don't be disingenuous, Elon is getting shit for trying to undermine the actions and goals of the state department. A charitable interpretation of his actions is that he's occasionally unable to contain his narcissistic traits, a less charitable interpretation is that he's looking for leverage to get his dick out of the hornet's nest that is the Twitter deal, and the least charitable option is that Russia is applying some leverage to force his hand. No matter the reason there's a good chance he'll end up regretting that (to the extent he's able to feel things like regret anyway).
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  At what point is he obligated to provide services and capabilities gratis? By that same argument shouldn't other defense contractors be providing weapons gratis instead of receiving money / new orders? The state department clearly wants to have weapons sent to ukraine, why should starlink not be compensated properly?
  - pmyteh 4y ago
    He's not obliged to do anything. He got good PR from the initial commitment, and is now getting bad PR resiling from it. Which seems entirely straightforward.
    - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
      Op implied Elon's goal is soley to undermine the State Department. I'm arguing none of that matters if at the end of the day, he's providing a capability and service, that has and will continue to lose money for his company. $80 million is no small amount. We also don't know what he asked for behind doors, given the anti elon nature of things these days, what's to say they're not just trying to take advantage of the situation?
  - katmannthree 4y ago
    If he just wanted money he would have asked (privately) and he would have gotten it. Instead he called Putin to talk about "peace" (read: appeasement) and then posts literal Kremlin talking points to Twitter and only mentioned getting money to maintain starlink after getting a ton of people telling him to fuck off.
    - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
      Do you have proof of this call? He's refuted it in public.
      - n8cpdx 4y ago
mtgx 4y ago
cjbgkagh 4y ago
It wasn’t about the headsets; it’s a way for the US govt to subsidize MS so that MS can do things like buy Skype and TikTok.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  Microsoft bought Skype a long time ago
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    I know I was there. And they didn’t buy TikTok. I’m talking about a general practice of quid pro quo.
yibberish 4y ago
> Absurdity. $180k per headset delivered? Did they mean $21.88mm?! nope, this is just how expensive doing such projects where none of the participants is able to undesrtand how it all comes together; because of military level safety requirements. but also, becuase if most people knew what they are working for they wouldn't do it. none of them want more snowdens, and these are costly to 'prevent'
culturestate 4y ago
> Absurdity. $180k per headset delivered? The Army didn’t ask for a ruggedized Hololens, they asked for[1] a globally capable end-to-end real-time augmented reality solution for waging war. 1. https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Program-Offices/Project-Manager-Integrated-Visual-Augmentation-System/ https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Program-Offices/Project-Mana...
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  I would argue it's the natural ruggedization of the existing tech (hololens platform). Integration with NV/Thermal and other tech is part of the scope so it only make sense. They had Gen 1 hololens prototypes in use for a while, just like 15 years or so ago they were using xbox 360 wired controllers to control unmanned assets. Eventually in field testing they'll break down or be damaged enough that they have to elevate the durability just for basic testing. Looking at the kit it's clear it's not some crazy deviation. Hell just a modern NV/Thermal capable helmet and optics can be 70-100k worth of equipment without hololens, and look just as bulky.
  - culturestate 4y ago
    > I would argue it's the natural ruggedization of the existing tech (hololens platform) … Looking at the kit it's clear it's not some crazy deviation. The contract is not just for headsets - it’s also for the backend infrastructure that allows them to function. Microsoft is not getting $21B to add gaskets and swap ABS out for PA6 Nylon. I’m not super familiar with the broader Hololens platform as it exists today but I can’t imagine that much of it would be widely useful for e.g. a Marine on the ground in Baghdad to task an F-35 pilot with close air support by looking at a 3D map of the building he’s standing in front of.
    - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
      oh of course it's a "platform" and the headsets are but one part of it One use case I can talk about that i've seen tested is nano drones and live data feeds from them. That would be valuable in varying types of combat situation. Additionally, i'm not sure what your relationship to "boots on the ground" is but many of infantry / frontlines are armed with electronic devices that fill all the same goals, this is just a means to put them in the field of vision and provide easier access. It's going to take time and a "killer" no pun intended, app for them to be eat'n up by the average joe though.
lumost 4y ago
The military is paying for both software and hardware. Recent dod programs have had outrageous unit costs because of this. There will probably only be 1-2k F-35s ever produced, but the DoD had to pay for sensor fusion software, avionics, new UI, targeting software, and weapons integration software. All of which must be guaranteed to work in any environment for the next 30 years. Same thing happens with modern missiles.
ksec 4y ago
That is $2B per year. Which when used properly, would have been a great advantage / head start to AR / VR. Or even the software quality on Windows, assuming it uses Windows and lots of additional improvement because of VR requirements. How are other companies suppose to compete? How are European companies suppose to compete?
VLM 4y ago
They're $29K per headset delivered. The other $150K per headset is the usual program costs. It's an ultra-high-risk project because there are huge gains to putting EVERYTHING electronic for a soldier in one headset. The GPS, the maps, NVGs, some kind of limited FLIR, replace the existing RWS UI systems for weapon sight video feeds, a replacement for the 80s era MILES "lasertag" training gear, replace everything a soldier carries that uses batteries or a computer chip right now. The problem with that huge gain is its now a huge risk, one blue screen or one "cyber incident" and that soldier is back to WWI level of tech across ALL categories. The other problem, which seems obvious in retrospect, is the invention of the "swiss army knife" did not eliminate the manufacture of all other hand tools. In fact 99% of manual labor does not use swiss army knives because dedicated hardware is so vastly superior. So its an interesting technological achievement to build a "soldier's electronic swiss army knife", but our opponents will be using dedicated tools that individually will be vastly superior to our soldier's swiss army knives. This turns it into a battle between vastly superior hardware vs theoretical gains in reduced weight, simpler logistics because there's just one thing, and possible gains from integration. Which will win on the battlefield? I guess we find out in the next big war?
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  Yep and realistically the pricing is on key. GPNVGs are easily in 40-50k alone before helmet, coms, and anything else that might be carried. I think people just aren't aware of how expensive mil-tech can be. That's a different issue, but it's how it is.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >because there are huge gains to putting EVERYTHING electronic for a soldier in one headset. I'm a little skeptical of these gains. I was an infantry platoon leader in OEF, and I'm really not seeing the value of putting the entire operating picture into an AR headset for every joe on the line. Maybe certain guys in certain roles could use it, but overloading your field of vision will all that information sounds like a terrible idea because of the cognitive load. Maybe you're saying that this could replace a number of existing devices, which ... maybe! The Swiss army knife analogy is probably apt. I just don't think this is useful for everyone.
jlg23 4y ago
> Absurdity. $180k per headset delivered? Did they mean $21.88mm?! I don't know the details of the deal, but assuming it contains a clause "you cannot sell it to anyone else without our approval" it might be a realistic price when you know you're selling only 120k units of something you have to develop against interfaces with an equally small user- (and thus developer-) base ....

by zaroth 4y ago

digdugdirk 4y ago

Keep in mind that this was not the completion of the contract. This was an initial evaluation of an early prototype, with nearly a decade of development time left before the final production version.

ganoushoreilly 4y ago
The biggest Issue i've seen is eye fatigue from changing focal points between virutal and real items as well as stationary objects locked to the displays. It's been a while since i've seen some of the tech but the best way i can put it is stare at the center of your tv screen, don't move your head, only move your eyes. That feeling of strain is what is amplified. I think it's going to need to be a more gradual phase in of the tech rather than putting all the info on display they were trying.

katmannthree 4y ago

Don't be disingenuous, Elon is getting shit for trying to undermine the actions and goals of the state department. A charitable interpretation of his actions is that he's occasionally unable to contain his narcissistic traits, a less charitable interpretation is that he's looking for leverage to get his dick out of the hornet's nest that is the Twitter deal, and the least charitable option is that Russia is applying some leverage to force his hand. No matter the reason there's a good chance he'll end up regretting that (to the extent he's able to feel things like regret anyway).

ganoushoreilly 4y ago
At what point is he obligated to provide services and capabilities gratis? By that same argument shouldn't other defense contractors be providing weapons gratis instead of receiving money / new orders? The state department clearly wants to have weapons sent to ukraine, why should starlink not be compensated properly?
- pmyteh 4y ago
  He's not obliged to do anything. He got good PR from the initial commitment, and is now getting bad PR resiling from it. Which seems entirely straightforward.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    Op implied Elon's goal is soley to undermine the State Department. I'm arguing none of that matters if at the end of the day, he's providing a capability and service, that has and will continue to lose money for his company. $80 million is no small amount. We also don't know what he asked for behind doors, given the anti elon nature of things these days, what's to say they're not just trying to take advantage of the situation?
- katmannthree 4y ago
  If he just wanted money he would have asked (privately) and he would have gotten it. Instead he called Putin to talk about "peace" (read: appeasement) and then posts literal Kremlin talking points to Twitter and only mentioned getting money to maintain starlink after getting a ton of people telling him to fuck off.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    Do you have proof of this call? He's refuted it in public.
    - n8cpdx 4y ago

mtgx 4y ago

cjbgkagh 4y ago

It wasn’t about the headsets; it’s a way for the US govt to subsidize MS so that MS can do things like buy Skype and TikTok.

moron4hire 4y ago
Microsoft bought Skype a long time ago
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  I know I was there. And they didn’t buy TikTok. I’m talking about a general practice of quid pro quo.

yibberish 4y ago

> Absurdity. $180k per headset delivered? Did they mean $21.88mm?! nope, this is just how expensive doing such projects where none of the participants is able to undesrtand how it all comes together; because of military level safety requirements. but also, becuase if most people knew what they are working for they wouldn't do it. none of them want more snowdens, and these are costly to 'prevent'

culturestate 4y ago

> Absurdity. $180k per headset delivered? The Army didn’t ask for a ruggedized Hololens, they asked for[1] a globally capable end-to-end real-time augmented reality solution for waging war. 1. https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Program-Offices/Project-Manager-Integrated-Visual-Augmentation-System/ https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Program-Offices/Project-Mana...

ganoushoreilly 4y ago
I would argue it's the natural ruggedization of the existing tech (hololens platform). Integration with NV/Thermal and other tech is part of the scope so it only make sense. They had Gen 1 hololens prototypes in use for a while, just like 15 years or so ago they were using xbox 360 wired controllers to control unmanned assets. Eventually in field testing they'll break down or be damaged enough that they have to elevate the durability just for basic testing. Looking at the kit it's clear it's not some crazy deviation. Hell just a modern NV/Thermal capable helmet and optics can be 70-100k worth of equipment without hololens, and look just as bulky.
- culturestate 4y ago
  > I would argue it's the natural ruggedization of the existing tech (hololens platform) … Looking at the kit it's clear it's not some crazy deviation. The contract is not just for headsets - it’s also for the backend infrastructure that allows them to function. Microsoft is not getting $21B to add gaskets and swap ABS out for PA6 Nylon. I’m not super familiar with the broader Hololens platform as it exists today but I can’t imagine that much of it would be widely useful for e.g. a Marine on the ground in Baghdad to task an F-35 pilot with close air support by looking at a 3D map of the building he’s standing in front of.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    oh of course it's a "platform" and the headsets are but one part of it One use case I can talk about that i've seen tested is nano drones and live data feeds from them. That would be valuable in varying types of combat situation. Additionally, i'm not sure what your relationship to "boots on the ground" is but many of infantry / frontlines are armed with electronic devices that fill all the same goals, this is just a means to put them in the field of vision and provide easier access. It's going to take time and a "killer" no pun intended, app for them to be eat'n up by the average joe though.

lumost 4y ago

The military is paying for both software and hardware. Recent dod programs have had outrageous unit costs because of this. There will probably only be 1-2k F-35s ever produced, but the DoD had to pay for sensor fusion software, avionics, new UI, targeting software, and weapons integration software. All of which must be guaranteed to work in any environment for the next 30 years. Same thing happens with modern missiles.

ksec 4y ago

That is $2B per year. Which when used properly, would have been a great advantage / head start to AR / VR. Or even the software quality on Windows, assuming it uses Windows and lots of additional improvement because of VR requirements. How are other companies suppose to compete? How are European companies suppose to compete?

VLM 4y ago

They're $29K per headset delivered. The other $150K per headset is the usual program costs. It's an ultra-high-risk project because there are huge gains to putting EVERYTHING electronic for a soldier in one headset. The GPS, the maps, NVGs, some kind of limited FLIR, replace the existing RWS UI systems for weapon sight video feeds, a replacement for the 80s era MILES "lasertag" training gear, replace everything a soldier carries that uses batteries or a computer chip right now. The problem with that huge gain is its now a huge risk, one blue screen or one "cyber incident" and that soldier is back to WWI level of tech across ALL categories. The other problem, which seems obvious in retrospect, is the invention of the "swiss army knife" did not eliminate the manufacture of all other hand tools. In fact 99% of manual labor does not use swiss army knives because dedicated hardware is so vastly superior. So its an interesting technological achievement to build a "soldier's electronic swiss army knife", but our opponents will be using dedicated tools that individually will be vastly superior to our soldier's swiss army knives. This turns it into a battle between vastly superior hardware vs theoretical gains in reduced weight, simpler logistics because there's just one thing, and possible gains from integration. Which will win on the battlefield? I guess we find out in the next big war?

ganoushoreilly 4y ago
Yep and realistically the pricing is on key. GPNVGs are easily in 40-50k alone before helmet, coms, and anything else that might be carried. I think people just aren't aware of how expensive mil-tech can be. That's a different issue, but it's how it is.
remarkEon 4y ago
>because there are huge gains to putting EVERYTHING electronic for a soldier in one headset. I'm a little skeptical of these gains. I was an infantry platoon leader in OEF, and I'm really not seeing the value of putting the entire operating picture into an AR headset for every joe on the line. Maybe certain guys in certain roles could use it, but overloading your field of vision will all that information sounds like a terrible idea because of the cognitive load. Maybe you're saying that this could replace a number of existing devices, which ... maybe! The Swiss army knife analogy is probably apt. I just don't think this is useful for everyone.

jlg23 4y ago

> Absurdity. $180k per headset delivered? Did they mean $21.88mm?! I don't know the details of the deal, but assuming it contains a clause "you cannot sell it to anyone else without our approval" it might be a realistic price when you know you're selling only 120k units of something you have to develop against interfaces with an equally small user- (and thus developer-) base ....