NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Electronic Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

The iPhone And The Lost Cause

September 30, 2009: American infantry officers who have fought in Iraq have become tech-heads, courtesy of all the electronic gear combat troops now carry. Officers often have laptops with them in combat, to display maps, overhead UAV video, satellite photos and all manner of data needed for them to fight smarter and more effectively. The troops use night-vision gear, electronic rifle sights and much more. Some get to handle portable radars that can see through walls and binoculars that have laser range finders and electronic links to artillery units. Many of the troops have cell phones. Smart phones, like the iPhone, are popular. The iPhone can use thousands of programs, and some of these are very useful for military personnel. Officers see how useful the iPhone could be with software designed for military purposes. A military version of the iPhone, able to operate on a closed military network, would be a big help in the combat zone. But these officers also know that the military procurement system, which often takes more than a decade to get new gear into the hands of the troops, could never deliver a military iPhone. This has made a lot of senior officers angry.

The troops also want combat ready cell phones. In the last decade, a generation has come of age that expects to carry around a phone, and stay connected 24/7. Their elders have also picked up on this convenience, to the point where the U.S. Army is actively trying to figure out how to make this happen. But the procurement bureaucracy, with an endless list of ways to delay such progress, stand in the way.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, where widespread cell phone service followed in the wake of the American invasions, many U.S. troops have bought local cell phone service, and use these phones when on combat operations. But the troops want more out of their phones than just instant communications. Like many business users, military personnel see the many potential uses of "smart phones." These are cell phones with personal computer like power, and capabilities. About ten percent of the cell phones being shipped this year are smart phones (the iPhone and Blackberry are two of the more popular models). Smart phones are particularly popular with businesses, where most of them are used. About a third of business users let their smart phone replace their laptop at least some of the time. But many business users are pushing for smart phones powerful enough to replace their laptops a lot more often.

This is where the troops want to go. Laptops have become increasingly common on the battlefield in the past decade. But laptops, even lightweight (under five pounds) ruggedized ones are bulky and heavy compared to a smart phone. Not the kind of stuff troops like to haul around. As a practical matter, it's only company commanders and a few others (like air and artillery controllers) who use laptops under fire. But platoon leaders (and platoon sergeants) could use a smart phone with laptop capabilities. So could squad leaders, and anyone who has to drive a truck (armored vehicles already come equipped with lots of computers).

The combination of network access and laptop quality software make a military smart phone a very useful gadget. Add in the GPS, and you have something every soldier would want. What the army is looking for is a smart phone that can work off battlefield wi-fi and have sufficient encryption and ruggedness to survive enemy efforts, and general rough use, to shut it down. The army now has several decades of experience using seemingly "delicate" electronics on the battlefield. There's no fear about this anymore, especially since some troops are using cell phones in combat (although you're not supposed to).

For commanders, a military smart phone (MSP for short) has numerous advantages. First, there's the convenience of having most of your unit data literally at your finger tips. Status of troops, ammo, equipment and the inevitable todo list, as well as maps and plans for future, or past, operations. Smart phones also push data onto a phone, to keep databases and schedules updated. Commanders love that sort of thing, as it saves them the hassle of checking on updates. And updates are a lot easier to collect with everyone connected. Senior NCOs can much more easily poll troops by texting them to get current status of things like ammo, sleep, food or health. Commanders like to stay on top of these items.

The army is in a hurry to get this working, because commercial smart phones are getting smarter and cheaper, and a lot more troops are getting them. Moreover, new smart phone models come out each year, and the MSP would be more effective if it could keep up with that development cycle.

While troops like stuff like personal radio sets (which came of age in Iraq), they also know that cell phones can do the same thing, and more. So the MSP would simply plug into the helmet headset. The army also has to deal with troops demand for iPod features (the most widespread "handheld computer"). The MSP would also be able to take stills and videos, and the troops like to carry favorite vids with them. Combining business and pleasure is not encouraged in the military, but the MSP will be a very personal piece of gear. It might even be able to use civilian cell networks as well, meaning that every troop will be issued one.

The effort to deliver a useful MSP is seen as a lost cause. But the demand is strong, and growing. Something surprising might happen. Then again, maybe not. But when some other nation comes up with an MSP, that might provide the incentive, now lacking, for the procurement bureaucracy.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article LEADERSHIP: Why So Many Damn Officers?


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Mike From Brielle    Well    9/30/2009 12:02:55 PM
this is just my opinion but besides the numerous IA/ security issues embedded in the above article and the fact that your talking about two very different types of networks (cell phones are much much more a switched type connection oriented system while the internet implies a router based connectionless system) both of which would presently require a fixed infrastructure to support them that if it doesn't already exist and/ or the enemy has a capacity to deny it to you when you start the fight would end up being an extra brick for the infantry to carry around with them.  What probably needs to be done is for there to be a modular commanders assistant scalable to the needs of the commander (fire team leader or Company CO?) in question that can adapt both operationally and technically (the interfaces available and the capacity of the interfaces available) to the communications resources available to it.  A Squad or even a Company can go from fighting in the era of the Jetsons to the era of the Flinstones in zero time if it crosses the wrong ridge line (which don't come with signs identifying them as the "Wrong Ridge Line") if their communications are too prissy.   One problem is that when your depending on a stochastic/ probabilistic communications link is that the less bandwidth you have the more problems you'll run  into while the more problems you have the more bandwidth you'll need.
 
The problem is we need to define the way we want to fight with the bandwidth available to us in any given situation.  Do we want to completely worst case it?  Lose allot of capability to robustness (I myself am a big fan of robustness, one of the few) If we do then the lobbyists and the Trekkies will get all pissy.   On the other hand if us military procurement types always  have our way the next blackhawk down situation will have scenes from CNN sending real time video closeups of US troops getting swacked but who can't get the time of day.  The American people will be rightfully horrified.  In fairness to us military procurement types the military environment and requirements is far harsher than most people think.
 
Their are different solutions (comm relay UAV's) all with thier weaknesses (too big, overweight, jammable, vulnerable UAV's).  Then some one will say if its too big then make it cover more territory but if it has to cover more territory it becomes more vulnerable; yada yada yada.....  
 
With the given technology we need to define whether a given technology is robust enough to be used episodically, intermittently to take advantage of specific area of adversary weakness, or as a baseline of mission planning with proper threat assessment.  Its a trade off.  Design our development schedules accordingly and try to migrate capabilities from the episodic to the baseline for different given threat conditions as merrited.
 
Quote    Reply

Headlock       9/30/2009 4:40:34 PM
Good analysis.

HDK
 
Quote    Reply

ndonovan    RE: Mike From Brielle   10/2/2009 3:59:25 PM
There seems to be several assumptions in your analysis that I question.  If troops go over a ridge they may lose communication to higher ups but won't they stay connected to each other?  "Another brick they have to carry" - a phone is quite small/light.  I assume troops are always taught to fight when certain supporting equipment is not available.  How do you cross the minefield if their are no engineers, how to assault the position is no artillery is available.  How to defend yourself if your gun jams. On and on.  We should equip our troops with the best available equipment and train them to deal with situations when things don't work.  The comment about needing to define data requirements sounds like some committee that will take years to make any decision.  I am all for getting something to the troops with basic functionality and enhancing/modifying it as we learn and technology permits.
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    ndonovan    10/2/2009 7:09:30 PM
At Paris Island I was taught close quarter combat in case my weapon jammed or I ran out of ammunition. If I did that meant that I was either negligent in cleaning my weapon (or had a bad magazine or ammo) or someone up the chain was negligent (assuming I was trained correctly and didn't srew up) in getting me and my buddies into a fight we would most likely take many many casualties in.  In the case of a non-communicating radio when the correlation of forces is even more lope sided then it has been in past generations it means this country takes a big strategic step backwards and us in the  procurement bureaucracy will be to blame.  Our Army and Marine Corps get much much smaller.  I wonder would you have sent the first people into Afghanistan in October/ November 2001 without radios?  If you did how do you think they would have done? 
 
 
Its not just the radio's its the batteries.  Will the small light phone have small light base stations following it around?  Will they be able to function all of the environments that military radios normally have to function in?  Are we guaranteed to always to be fighting in a relatively permissive environment (operationally and electromagnetically speaking)?
 
Defining data requirements is called doctrine and you get it by evaluating where you've been, look to where you need to go, talk to the people who have been there and done that and hopefully the process will not be compromised by the lobbyists and the Trekkie's.  Its a pollitically dangerous job but some one has to do it without prejudice of any kind.  Its also more than just starting simple and growing from lessons learned, its how suitable (is it worth it operationally long term) is this to integrate into the general force.  At what pace?  Does it accomidate the the developement, fielding, and deployment cycles. 
 
Have to go now see you next week. 
 
Quote    Reply

jak267       10/5/2009 12:26:02 AM
If I did that meant that I was either negligent in cleaning my weapon (or had a bad magazine or ammo) or someone up the chain was negligent (assuming I was trained correctly and didn't srew up) in getting me and my buddies into a fight we would most likely take many many casualties in.
 
It's always nice to have an overwhelming advantage - but since when has that become the basic requirement to engage the enemy? (Oh, right, since we live in a time where all wars are foolish adventures and if someone gets killed it's always our fault - not the enemy's.)
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    jak267   10/5/2009 10:06:20 AM

I guess the point I was trying to make was that you don't go into a fight with the expectation that you'll run out of the resources necessary to complete the mission.  Or just don't bring a knife to a gun fight. 

 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy