Landwarrior system what do you think :)


Active member
Land Warrior integrates small arms with high-tech equipment enabling ground forces to deploy, fight and win on the battlefields of the 21st century. Land Warrior came about in 1991 when an Army study group recommended the service look at the soldier as a complete weapon system. The first priority in Land Warrior is lethality. The second is survivability and the third, command and control. The program will cost $2 billion when 45,000 sets of the equipment are fielded between 2001-2014. The Marine Corps, Air Force and many foreign countries are interested in the system.

Based on recent advances in communications, sensors, and materials, the Land Warrior System integrates commercial, off-the-shelf technologies into a complete soldier system. For the first time, the soldier's equipment is being designed as if he is an individual, complete weapons platform. Each subsystem and component is designed to and for the soldier. The result: the first integrated soldier fighting system for the dismounted infantryman.

Land Warrior has several subsystems: the weapon, integrated helmet assembly, protective clothing and individual equipment, computer/radio, and software.
The Weapon Subsystem is built around the M-16/M-4 modular carbine. The weapon subsystem includes key electrical optical components such as the TWS, video camera, and the laser rangefinder/digital compass (LRF/DC). The LRF/DC provides the soldier with range and direction information. When coupled with his individual location from GPS, the soldier has accurate target location when calling for indirect fire and combat identification. This system will allow infantrymen to operate in all types of weather and at night. In conjunction with other components, a soldier can even shoot around corners without exposing himself to enemy fire.
The Integrated Helmet Assembly Subsystem (IHAS) uses advanced materials to provide ballistic protection at less weight than the current helmet shell. The integrated helmet assembly is lighter and more comfortable than today's helmet. The IHAS's helmet mounted computer and sensor display is the soldier's interface to the other subsystems and to the digital battlefield. Through the helmet mounted display, the soldier can view computer-generated graphical data, digital maps, intelligence information, troop locations and imagery from his weapon-mounted Thermal Weapon Sight (TWS) and video camera. This new capability allows the soldier to view around a corner, acquire a target, then fire the weapon without exposing himself, beyond his arms and hands, to the enemy. By scanning an area with his weapon's thermal sight, the soldier will be able to see an area's characteristics, including terrain and enemy positions, and will be able to see through obscurants. The thermal images will appear on a miniature helmet-mounted display. The Night Sensor Display will integrate a helmet mounted display with an image intensifier for access to his computer sensors as cited above. This will allow the soldier to maneuver and engage targets under cover of darkness.

The Protective Clothing and Individual Equipment Subsystem consists of a revolutionary backpack frame design based on state-of-the-art automotive racing technology which bends with the soldier's natural body movements. The cables are integrated into the frame as necessary for the soldier's computer/radio connections. The soldier can adjust his backpack frame to adjust the load distribution from his shoulders to his hips while on the move. A simple adjustment, yet it allows the soldier to manage and carry his combat load more effectively and with less fatigue. The new LW body armor, like the helmet, provides improved ballistic protection at a reduced weight. The Land Warrior body armor includes a modular upgrade plate to protect the soldier against the small arms threat. The protective clothing and individual equipment subsystem incorporates modular body armor and upgrade plates that can stop small-arms rounds fired point-blank.

The infantryman will attach the Computer/Radio Subsystem (CRS) to his load-bearing frame. Over this goes the rucksack for personal gear. The computer processor is fused with radios and a Global Positioning System locator. A hand grip wired to the pack and attached to the soldier's chest acts as a computer mouse and also allows the wearer to change screens, key on the radio, change frequencies and send digital information. The subsystem comes in two flavors: The leader version has two radios and a flat panel display/keyboard, and soldiers have one radio. With the equipment, leaders and soldiers can exchange information. Soldiers using their weapon-mounted camera, for example, can send videos to their leaders. In its GEN II version, the computer and radio will be combined and embedded in new web gear. The system will be built around a series of cards the size of credit cards, but slightly thicker.
The CRS is integrated into the backpack frame in two sections. The upper portion contains two radios the squad radio and the soldier radio). The squad radio is based on a repackaged commercial radio and will be fully compatible with SINCGARS SIP. The soldier radio is based on a repackaged handheld commercial radio made by Motorola. This gives the soldier the ability to communicate with others in his squad, greatly improving situation awareness and survivability through increased command and control.
The lower portion of the backpack contains the computer and the global positioning system (GPS) modules. Integration of the GPS and radio into the CRS eliminates separate displays, controls and cases, thereby saving weight and reducing power requirements. Menu driven displays are controlled by the soldier from his Remote Input Pointing Device. This device is located on the chest strap and is operated by the touch of a finger. Some functions are controlled with two buttons located near his trigger finger, allowing the soldier to maintain a firing position. Imbedded into the load carrying frame are the antennas for the GPS and soldier radio. The open architecture of the CRS allows direct insertion of future upgrades in both hardware and software.

The Land Warrior software subsystem addresses the soldier's core battlefield functions, display management, and mission equipment and supply. The software subsystem includes tactical and mission support modules, maps and tactical overlays, and the ability to capture and display video images. The system also contains a power management module. Land Warrior will be interoperable on the digital battlefield. Designers set up the system so it can be updated as technology improves. The modular architecture allows for direct insertion/replacement with technology upgrades. The software subsystem allows the soldier to tailor the display, menus and functional operation of his system to his own mission needs and preferences.
The prime contractor for the Land Warrior System is Raytheon Systems Company. Subcontractors include Motorola, Honeywell, Omega, GENTEX and Battelle.

The soldiers who will actually use Land Warrior have been consulted every step of the way. Prime contractor Raytheon worked with experts at the U.S. Army Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., in designing the system. They have taken the system to the users to ensure the system is headed in the right direction. The rucksack has quick-release straps so an infantryman can just drop it if the need arises. One problem the Army must overcome before fielding is power. Current batteries last about 150 minutes with all systems running. Other batteries under development by the Army's Communications- Electronics Command may push the time up to 30 hours. Individual portable power packs, possibly with form-fitting batteries that would be less obtrusive when worn as part of the soldier fighting harness, are being considered. Another possibility is development of a "sleep" mode that would automatically put the equipment on standby when not in use to conserve battery energy.

In order to be accepted by the Army, the Land Warrior System must weigh less than 80 pounds (including the TWS). This weight was selected to represent the current load being carried by today's soldier. The current weight of the system in development is 86 pounds.

The Army plans to test the Land Warrior system with a platoon from the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky. Later, a battalion-sized test is planned. Nearly 5,000 Land Warrior systems will be fielded by the end of 1999. First Unit Equipped (first system in the hands of soldiers) is currently scheduled for between 2000 and 2001. The Army is currently planning on contracting for 34,000 systems plus spares. The total systems cost is estimated to be approximately $70,000 each in FY96 dollars.
LW will be followed by a more elaborate soldier system that's expected to be fielded in the year 2003 as part of the Generation II/21 CLW program. GEN II will be more compact, energy efficient, producible, affordable and survivable, and will be more easily integrated into the digitized battlefield

<img src="" alt="Image hosted by">
<img src="" alt="Image hosted by">
<img src="" alt="Image hosted by">
a very very specialized system desgined for special missions, isn't there anything more reasonable to spend money on cos I think this landwarrior thing is a waste of money much like the OICW that was supposed to be the main weapon for these units, too much money would be spent on training and equipping and then replacing possible casualties would be painful.
Its costly... but in the end it will pay off imho... i watched a documentary on it on discovery channel! seems like its very effective...
It's a pipe dream. We're still using the same gun from the 1950s meanwhile they think they can put a computer on everyone through rain snow sleet hail bullets sandstorms mountains when the average American is happy when his PC makes it through the day without a restart? Ha!
Nicely put, and I agree with you to a point. Granted we use the same basic design as from the 1950's, but that is not the sole weapon available and there have been modifications and improvements to both the weapon and the ammunition. Do you think NASA has the same problems with its computers as the average Microsoft user?? I doubt that the US military will allow soldiers on the battlefield with slipshod programming or hardware.

On the opposite side of the coin, in a discussion I had with RnderSafe, it was said that new battlefield technology should not be looked at with rose-colored glasses, as there will be unforseen problems with it. Gear should be utilized, not relied upon.
Only minor disagreement

I disagree with you ONLY in degree. Todays mainframes are NOT shock mounted enough and the technology is NOT developed enough to circumvent bad weather or survive exposure to the rigours of the battlefield.


The integrated warrior system IS an addition to the Warrior of Tomorrow's arsenal that will mean unprecedented coordination between decision makers and the average foot slogger. The Warrior of Tomorrow will more than likely be armed with some kind of "rail" weapon which fires needle sized "bullets" at supersonic speeds that are only imagined with todays weaponry.

The ability to electronically camouflage a soldier is one of the primary uses that is being explored by the designers and this too is a very real possibility for the future.

The moneys being spent now to explore these possibilities may very well run into the millions and billions of dollars but the return is definitely worth it. Anything that gives our soldiers an edge on the field of combat WILL and CAN save countless live.
Whispering Death said:
NASA scatters their astronauts in pices over East Texas, I wouldn't point to them for emulation.

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.
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.
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.
:horsie: :horsie: 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.
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.
Whispering Death said:
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.
Whispering Death said:
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.
Last edited: