[quote] Please do not use such a flippant tone in regards to those astronauts, Air Force officers I might add. Even with the best technology, there are accidents. A piece of foam, a bad rotor, human error, etc. I dont think that that is a fair evaluation. [quote]

Thats part of the problem though the tech on those things (besides for the electronics) is from the 60s and 70s and needs to updated badly. IE a new craft.

IMHO, the landwarrior system is more like a step in the right direction, without it being of any use in the field. looks like shit too.

Still say IF it pans out it will be a boon to the Warriors of Tomorrow and save countless lives. Cost will be worth it.

You cant run before youve learnt to walk. The Landwarrior system is the logical step foward in small arms technology but it is not ready.
The money spent would be better invested in upgrading and improving existing small arms. Electronics are not robust enough(yet) to put up with the abuse the user would put it through.
The size and cost also make it impractical to be a standard issue weapon,however it may be a valuable addition to the toolbox of special forces units as there may be circumstances which make it the ideal choice for an op.In this case if it can be used and increase the chances of success of an op by any amount then cost becomes irrelevent.

Land worrier system is very effective &mighty system.

I'm more along Sven's line of thinking. You're putting the cart before the horse here. I don't disagree that in theory it's a great idea, I'm just saying that it sounds like a pipe dream to me. We've got infantry getting maimed and killed by cheap roadside bombs by the hundreds and we're still staring at the shiney pretty landwarrior system.

We need better armor, better APC/IFVs, and updated rifels for the infantry before we start worrying about pie-in-the-sky things like landwarrior.

Having personally seen and operated the LWS I say it's a great system. it's an amazing system. Two CPU's, cool mouse, awesome Thermal and Day Time sight, cool eye cup screen.

Having talked to a good friend on the R&D they have definatly improved the system from a ruck sack size CP system to about the size of a deck of card.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I'm more along Sven's line of thinking. You're putting the cart before the horse here. I don't disagree that in theory it's a great idea, I'm just saying that it sounds like a pipe dream to me. We've got infantry getting maimed and killed by cheap roadside bombs by the hundreds and we're still staring at the shiney pretty landwarrior system.

We need better armor, better APC/IFVs, and updated rifels for the infantry before we start worrying about pie-in-the-sky things like landwarrior.

Mind you this system was in the works way beofre OIF started. Why start something and not finish it.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

NASA scatters their astronauts in pices over East Texas, I wouldn't point to them for emulation.

Pardon? Why don't you gain a little respect. How about those in Apollo 1, you want to rag on them?

Oh please, the NASA of today isn't the NASA of the Apollo days. Back then they where able to get stuff done. Today they run 40-million-dollar taxi rides up to low earth orbit and can't even do that right.

I'm not saying Landwarrior isn't a good idea and isn't really fun and shiney to look at on paper and see guys running around on TV looking like something out of a Sci-Fi movie. But we're still using the M-16. The greatest technological improvement for the infantry in the last 50 years has been the camelbak. Our infantry need a lot more advancements in technology that they can actually take onto the field tomorrow than continually ****ing money into this pie-in-the-sky thing.

The #1 thing they should be worried about is getting our boys a decent modern rifle. We're 2 or 3 generations of fighter plane further than when the M-16 was invented. Why are we forcing the guys who take all the casualties to still be using the same generation of weapon as any poor Somalian can pick up off the street corner?

Then we need to work on getting our boys better lighter body armor. 2 years ago we where still having problems just getting armor on our fighting infantry. We need to do a much better job of getting better and lighter life-saving equipment on our infantry, who are, again, the one MOS who constantly take 25% of all casualties in modern wars.

Then we need to be exploring and getting better APC and IFV technologies. If an enemy as poor and inexperienced as Iraqi insurgents can consistaintly break through all our technology to kill and wound soldiers daily, multiple times daily, this is a huge problem. You don't think Iran, Syria, North Korea, and every war planner in the world isn't taking note? You can bet top dollar that in every war we fight from here on we are going to see an insurgentcy and an insurgentcy that will use roadside bombs.

If we can handle all that, then maybe, just maybe, we can start looking seriously at the OICW as a realistic compliament to the infantry squads for its lethality. It's a very ambitious weapons design and has been heald up over and over again as the techs are finally figuring out how big this bite they've taken out and now have to start chewing on. But as hard as the OICW is to actually get in the field, it's a cakewalk compared to how unrealistic landwarrior is.

I could go on with more. But our infantry is drastically underequipped and underfinanced compared to other fighting units. The fighter pilots have unprecendented technology at their disposal. The tankers have M1 Abrams tanks which have proven themselves in multiple wars over multiple decades to be one of the greatest tank designes in the history of warfare. Helicopter pilots have unprecedented lethality and survivability in their craft. But the humble workhore infantryman has been stuck with technology still on par with anything that can be picked up on a street corner in a 3rd world country. They deserve better. I would love to see the day when we can start talking about the landwarrior system but the truth is it's just a drain on resources that need to be better impliamented. It's one of those congress-darlings that pentagon R&D guys can take into the budget meetings to wow the politicians into more funding. It will be 10 years before it's even in the hands of the special operators, meanwhile the humble infantryman will still be trying to clean his M-16.