Re: Archaic Targeting Systems

In Subject 2453, [email removed] (Richard Johnson) writes about a new
in-helmet HUD system for infantry.

> . Is it radiation hardened?

As a MilSpec device, it *has* to be, otherwise the DoD won't authorize
the purchase.  As an employee of a military contractor (among other things),
trust me on this one. :-)

> . How much does the HUD limit peripheral vision?

Built into a helmet?  Lots.  Find out how many military Helos have crashed
at night because the pilot was wearing a 'night vision system', and ran
into a power line or something equally pathetic.  Imagine a soldier wearing
this thing, crashing around in the brush, because he keeps tripping over
roots he can't see very well.

> . Can the signals from other people's units be jammed, foiled,
>   confused?
>         (I assume the current position info is telemetry, not passive)

Not neccessarily.  If they have the equivalent of a SINS (Ships Internal
Navigation System), they don't need telemetry.  Just spin up the gyro,
feed it a very accurate initial position, and you're ready to go.  Subs
use these because they can't get navsat signals when they're at operational
depths.  (Right, Carl?)

> . For that matter, can your own unit be misled?

Nope.  See previous answer.

> . Will reliance on the unit make the wearer more vulnerable when it
>   breaks?

Depends upon how stupid (or lazy) the soldier is.  ("Gee.  My life
preserver just sprang a leak.  Too bad I never learned how to swim!") :-)

> . Does it connect to night-vision equipment?

An NVS is maginally useful for pilots (see above), and more useful for
a stationary spotter (like a sentry or sniper).  For a person trying to
move around on foot, it's probably not much more than dead weight.

> . Does it have RFI that gives away your position?

MilSpec would prevent it from having enough to do that.

> What's the real advantage to the nation that possesses this equipment,
> both militarily and economically?

Maybe less than you think.  (Picture this: high-tech 21st century ground-
pounder stumbles around half-blind while Afghani Mujahadeen (sic) creep
up out of their foxholes and slip a sharp knife into his shrapnel-stopping
Kevlar vest.)

Then, Bertil ([email removed]) writes:

> > From: [email removed] (Richard Johnson)
> > Subject: (2453) Archaic Targeting Systems
> >
> > A heads-up display, which projects a virtual image in front of the
> > user's eyes, would be mounted on a soldier's helmet or goggles, he
> > added.
>
>   Permit me to doubt the practicallity of it. I know how hard it is to keep
> a helmet and a pair of ear protectors on straight while using a weapons at
> night:)

Yup.  What he said. :-)

>   Other than that, I think the greatest problem is the batteries. The
> computer part will be easy enough to power, but the display and especially
> the radio will eat batteries like popcorn.

Hmmm.  Maybe, but I think a good design would overcome both of these
problems.  The display can't be too bright or it zaps the soldiers
night vision.  As for radio, I imagine it would be strictly LOS with
a very limited range (say, 5 klicks).

>   Other problems might be that the light leaking out of the HUD alerts
> enemies, and the incredible amount of chatter over the radio that probably
> will result from every soldier having a radio of their own.

Again, I don't think there would be enough light leakage to be a problem.
As for radio chatter, most of that could be controlled by rigid commo
discipline and no VOX activation.  If you have to think about it before
you push the 'transmit' button, you'll be amazed at how much it cuts down
on the idle chatter.

Later,
	- Mark C.