3 ms·
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 pu
by 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 agoYep 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.
- ganoushoreilly 4y agoI agree information overload is a thing that can and will happen. I think this is more akin to moving towards a fully integrated helmet system, nods, thermal, and respirator. I'm not sure when and where you were deployed but even in OEF / OIF we saw an increase in head cams and other things being bolted onto helmets. I would imagine again, this is all just to get a standard loadout. That said, if I was back in those days, i'd be more excited about the armys new sig rifle, optic, and supressor than any bulky headset like this.