[WellsIDidIt]

Wells: Modern militaries get influence on design and so on that they don't get in Shadowrun.  In SR, they're stuck choosing from what the corps want to provide.

In SR, the corps effectively have their own militaries, who would have the same influence on the design of their gear. They're in an arms race against each other as well. I mean heck, they actually throw full-fledged battles against each other in Desert Wars to showcase their newest developments each year.

[RHat]

Wells: Modern militaries get influence on design and so on that they don't get in Shadowrun.  In SR, they're stuck choosing from what the corps want to provide.

In SR, the corps effectively have their own militaries, who would have the same influence on the design of their gear. They're in an arms race against each other as well. I mean heck, they actually throw full-fledged battles against each other in Desert Wars to showcase their newest developments each year.

And they get to use whatever they're damn well told.

Also, there's anumber of projects where military influence on design just screwed everything up, anyways.

[ProfessorCirno]

Before I forget...

Except they aren't rare. Anyone that's gotten training in the field (whether traditional security training at a school, on on the job training through a corp job) can penetrate that Firewall 6. Remember that the skill rating 6 is merely a professional level. An actual good decker (say 8-10) is going to have an even easier time.

This is a really weird way of looking at it.  Level 6 is not "merely professional," it means you can easily sell your skills on the open market.  Rating 4 is "professional level for most jobs."  8 means you are so sought after that corps will actively attempt to extract you from other corps.  That's pretty far from the start of "an actual good decker."  And 10 would make you one of the best in your country.  You have to REALLY skew things to assume that's going to be the norm.

"An actual good decker" would normally fall between 4-6.  At 7+, you are explicitly noteworthy.

[Namikaze]

Professor, that's more or less true.  Level 6 is now considered to be Professional, with exceptional being around 8 or so.  Most of the elite security forces for corporations rank most of their skills in the 8 range.

[martinchaen]

I can't really agree entirely, firebug, because we have actually seen the exact opposite in the past years.

Part of the reason the current Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior system hasn't been widely implemented is its vulnerability to sabotage. The main design principle behind the current phase of it is separation of critical parts from tactical parts, so that wireless sabotage cannot remove a soldier's ability from the field. In other words, they are designing it intelligently. It's last field tests went extraordinarily well, but we still don't field it in force, despite it's major advantages, because of these few flaws that it has.

The system is designed to keep as much information localized to each soldier as possible, while transferring only what it needs to wirelessly. Keep in mind, it's still not considered viable for anything other than field tests even though it doesn't destroy a soldiers weapons when hacked.

What can the Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior system do:
-Shoot Around Corners
-Target Acquisition
-Thermographic/IR Capability
-Video Feed (Wireless Transmit)
-GPS transmitter/Dead Reckoning Module (essentially and Orientation System)
-Combat Identification to Reduce Friendly Fire (two versions, one scans the video feed to analyze uniforms with no need for wireless information, one reads the GPS transmitter and checks against the scanned video)
-Eye Display for tactical information (maps, troop placement, weapon viewpoint or wireless information from other soldiers with system)
-Health Monitor (Wirelessly transmits health conditions to nearby soldiers and/or officers)
-Subvocal Mic and Eye Tracking Operating System for hands free communication and computer management

That's just what it can do today, and by that, I mean three years ago when the last field test was released (which was probably done a year or more before that. The plans for 2032 literally blow the combat gear in SR out of the water.

The point here is that only a few of the current systems use wireless capabilities, and it's still not considered viable because of it's wireless vulnerabilities. Transmitting video feeds (which can be shut off), soldier location (which can be shut off), one form of Friendly Fire ID (which can be shut off without negating the entire system), a bit of the tac display (most mission information is loaded to start with), and the Health Monitoring (which can be shut off), those by themselves make the system unfeasible because of the information they give the enemy.

In 2007 they almost scrapped the program entirely because they were having issues getting the weight down. They were two pounds over their goal. If two pounds of weight makes them consider scrapping it, I can't imagine what telling them, "you can use this, but it opens up your guns to being destroyed by hackers," would do. That's multitudes worse than their current issues with the system.

It's not that they would never use this system, it's been field tested many times. It's that this system would never go into full production with gaping design flaws like SR has.

Some people say that soldiers wouldn't need the extra edge from a Smartgun, but who exactly is that Smartgun designed for? These are combat systems. They're designed for police forces and soldiers and security teams.

Source?

Right, I'm betting you don't have one, beyond media speculation and official reports. Keep in mind that experimental tech is just that, experimental. Army is never going to utilize something without extensive field testing. Look at how long it took them to replace something as mechanically simple as a rifle, for Pete's sake.

Wireless vulnerabilities are far down the list of issues with Future Warrior, you can take my word on that...

And Firebug, an air or artillery strike is definitely the better option in a target rich environment. Bring the rain :-)

[WellsIDidIt]

Well let's see, there's:
How Stuff Works
Defense-Update
Armedforces-int
Military Technologies
as well of the Modeling and Simulation packet that has been made public to journalists just to name a few.

Of course they aren't going to release it without field testing it. The Land Warrior system has been in testing since '94 and has since been renamed to the Future Warrior. That's two decades of testing. That said, the journalists and reports being pushed out disagree with your assessment that wireless vulnerabilities are "far down the list," but I guess I should take your multitude of sources for it. After all, scientific break downs and official reports are worthless because you, some random guy on the internet, say so.

[Dinendae]

Source?

Right, I'm betting you don't have one, beyond media speculation and official reports. Keep in mind that experimental tech is just that, experimental. Army is never going to utilize something without extensive field testing. Look at how long it took them to replace something as mechanically simple as a rifle, for Pete's sake.

My information is a bit dated now, but back in 1999 I was almost assigned to the post testing this. At the time, from what I had been told, the hold up had been with the rifle; there were complaints that the original version was too heavy (which I found laughable, as it was supposed to still be lighter than a M203). The company developing it switched to a lighter weight of plastic, which caused its own set of problems: When asked what the current problem with the weapon was, a NCO grabbed it by the barrel and buttstock, and easily broke it over his knee. The weapon was sent back for redesigning. I have no idea what the current problems are.

[martinchaen]

Dinendae
That sounds about right.

[Namikaze]

I've worked with some of the modeling and simulation that Wells describes.  The Future Force Warrior system is a pipe dream at this point.  It cannot do many of the things described, though in theory it should be possible to perform all of the tasks that he describes.

I can't really agree entirely, firebug, because we have actually seen the exact opposite in the past years.

Part of the reason the current Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior system hasn't been widely implemented is its vulnerability to sabotage.

I call bull on this.  The main reason is hasn't been implemented is because of miniaturization costs.  To outfit a single warrior with this system, you could outfit a whole squad with the current tech.

The main design principle behind the current phase of it is separation of critical parts from tactical parts, so that wireless sabotage cannot remove a soldier's ability from the field. In other words, they are designing it intelligently. It's last field tests went extraordinarily well, but we still don't field it in force, despite it's major advantages, because of these few flaws that it has.

I'd be fascinated to know how you are aware of the current phase of development of this project.  I have friends who are involved in the development of this project, and they can't tell me crap about it, even with my clearance.

-Shoot Around Corners
-Target Acquisition
-Thermographic/IR Capability
-Video Feed (Wireless Transmit)
-GPS transmitter/Dead Reckoning Module (essentially and Orientation System)
-Combat Identification to Reduce Friendly Fire (two versions, one scans the video feed to analyze uniforms with no need for wireless information, one reads the GPS transmitter and checks against the scanned video)
-Eye Display for tactical information (maps, troop placement, weapon viewpoint or wireless information from other soldiers with system)
-Health Monitor (Wirelessly transmits health conditions to nearby soldiers and/or officers)
-Subvocal Mic and Eye Tracking Operating System for hands free communication and computer management

Shooting around corners is done by a camera that allows for aiming around the corner.  It's hardly "shooting around corners."  It's more like "you can do what you've always done, but more accurately and safely."
Target acquisition is a dream still.  More accurately, the system can identify movement and if the object moving doesn't have an IFF indicator it's designated.
Thermographic/IR is real and functional based on the info that I have.
Video feed is also functional, as is wireless transmission.  However, most of the places where something like this will see action have spotty wireless connections at best.  Mountains disrupt radio signals, so satellites are required and that would mean dedicated satellite time for each squad.  Kind of a no-go for most places, but it's feasible in some AOs.
GPS/Dead Reckoning is absolutely integrated.  But it's certainly nothing we don't have access to right now either.  It's hardly futuristic.
Combat ID is something I haven't heard about being integrated yet.  Doesn't mean it hasn't - it's certainly feasible.
Eye display is something that supposedly works, but I haven't heard of anyone having it work yet.  Since this type of tech has been around in HUDs of aircraft for a long time it should be able to work.  The problem is probably again with integration.
Health monitors are something we have right now.  The trick is that they're trying to work out a smaller, lighter, less invasive method of doing health monitoring.  Some of the new polymer-based processors should be able to provide this functionality, but it's still a ways out from being perfected.
The subvocal microphone is legit.  The eye tracking system is running into some issues - namely how to process data fast enough to make it useful in a combat situation.  Last I heard (and this is a rumor), the eye tracking system would be disabled by a lot of the test soldiers when entering combat because it was too busy.

That's just what it can do today, and by that, I mean three years ago when the last field test was released (which was probably done a year or more before that. The plans for 2032 literally blow the combat gear in SR out of the water.

You need to not get your info from TV shows and websites.  All of that info is full of speculation and opinion.  You need to talk to the people involved and get what is referred to as "actionable intel" before you claim to know something.  Especially something with a lot of secrecy and a murky-yet-fluid contracting system.  Let's not forget about all of these projects, many of which were cancelled after going way over budget and way over deadline.  This could be one of those casualties.

[WellsIDidIt]

Shooting around corners is done by a camera that allows for aiming around the corner.  It's hardly "shooting around corners."  It's more like "you can do what you've always done, but more accurately and safely."

The camera attaches to the eye display on the helmet subsystem allowing the person to aim. It's pretty much exactly what a smartgun around the corner shows on an image link minus the ballistics processor. The german IdZ system is working on the ballistics processor for the sights on the G22 and M82 rifles that they are testing it on.

Target acquisition is a dream still.  More accurately, the system can identify movement and if the object moving doesn't have an IFF indicator it's designated.

Yeah...no. Target acquisitions is a basic principle in modern robotics. Without getting into detail, it combines many algorithms used for facial recognition as well as many of the algorithms used to calculate speed on anti-air targeting systems. Target acquisition isn't just for combat. Most robotics that involves moving, catching, or placing something on their own use target acquisition software.

Last I heard (and this is a rumor), the eye tracking system would be disabled by a lot of the test soldiers when entering combat because it was too busy.

The problem is actually tied to peripheral vision. The lenses used in the modern system make it so that the system doesn't function unless the soldier can stare straight into it. There usually isn't time for that in combat.

You need to not get your info from TV shows and websites.  All of that info is full of speculation and opinion.  You need to talk to the people involved and get what is referred to as "actionable intel" before you claim to know something.  Especially something with a lot of secrecy and a murky-yet-fluid contracting system.  Let's not forget about all of these projects, many of which were cancelled after going way over budget and way over deadline.  This could be one of those casualties.

Military Technologies is considered a reliable source in the industry as are the the released testing and simulation. You can call it speculation if you want, but they have clearly defined goals and state what they have accomplished. As you'll note from the quote you used, there is normally a four to five year gap between any information that comes out and what they are currently doing.

Of course, you can choose to ignore sources that are considered legit for research purposes. Most of what they claim to be able to do has been done in some degree in the civilian market.

[Namikaze]

What you're describing isn't target acquisition so much as it's object tracking.  It has been done for a long time, but determining the difference between friend and foe is done with IFF recognition, which is a different field entirely.  Also IFF has been done a long time, but the way that they're trying to do IFF with the Future Force system is completely different.  I worked with the guy who developed the technology of making Predator drones accept orders from a ground unit's hand signal.  I'm familiar with the difference.

I consider real talk with real sources to be more reliable than the news that gets pieced together by the media.  The point of all of this is that you don't really know what you're talking about, because you don't really have any hands-on experience with any of this stuff.  You're piecing things together from multiple sources and then acting like an expert.  Stop it.

It's reasonable to assume that no one here is truly an expert on weapons, electronics, etc.  Especially when it comes to Shadowrun.  Let's all just play the game and stop getting bogged down in the details.

[WellsIDidIt]

I consider real talk with real sources to be more reliable than the news that gets pieced together by the media.

Depends on the media in question and the the subject you are researching. Face to face talking can be great for a single aspect of a project that the person works on, but is rarely beneficial for an understanding of the whole project.

As for using multiple sources, that's called good research. You find reliable sources for a given topic. Preferably unbiased, but you can use biased sources as long as you find ones on the other side of the fence to allow an unbiased review of your information.

As for IFF, you're correct, they're trying a method that does not require the sort of data passing the Mark XII system used. Instead they want something that works without passing information at all. Hence why they're trying the visual recognition database for identifying uniforms. Sure, it can't identify an enemy with any assurance, but that is the classic way that IFF works. It shows allies, not foes.

Object tracking is the part where it gets speed, angle of movement, ect. and highlights the target box you need to hit if the target stays on course. Modern models also use common maneuvers to determine likely target boxes, and more recent models actively monitor and watch the target's movements to make determinations more accurate.

Target acquisition is where the system highlight high value targets that need to be targeted. Combined with object tracking it makes eliminating high value targets easier than ever. High value targets can be anything from specific people to specific weapons (hence the use of facial recognition algorithms that I mentioned).

I'm not an expert on military technology, but most of this is becoming fairly standard capability in the software and robotics industry as a whole, which is the industry I work in.

[Namikaze]

I'm not an expert on military technology, but most of this is becoming fairly standard capability in the software and robotics industry as a whole, which is the industry I work in.

Cool.  Glad we sorted that out.  Can you please stop talking down to people now?  You made statements that were true, but aren't necessarily applicable to the discussion, and then made people feel stupid for not knowing what you know.

[WellsIDidIt]

What exactly isn't applicable to what I was discussing?

[Namikaze]

I'd rather not flood the thread with text, so I'll use the quotes and leave the quote empty.  if you want, you can follow the link to the original text.  Not all of this is out of this particular thread either, because that would mean that we'd have to have this argument over and over for each thread.  The short version of all of this is that you decided to bring military contracts, military contractors, and military equipment into conversations that have nothing to do with those subjects.  You helped to derail this thread for over 5 pages, and it's getting both annoying and insulting.  In other threads, you have been flat-out insulting to people who either don't agree with you, or don't know what you know.