First of all, I'm not a fan of ACMS in its current format and size. In particular, I would think that the ACMS will be a horror in a river crossing exercise (without the proper prior preparation) - therefore, I don't want to be cast into the role of 'selling' the merits of the ACMS.
However, please consider reading more on the
ACMS (Singapore) and the Land Warrior (US) programmes, if we are to have a meaningful discussion on the topic.
For the sake of clarity, let me explain that ACMS has three modular variants:
(i) the Basic Fighting System (supplied to group leaders) focused on fighting capabilities;
(ii) the Full Fighting System (supplied to Section Commanders & above), equipping the Commander and building on the Basic Fighting System, but adding significant C2 capabilities ; and
(iii) the Hand Held System (i.e. a Panasonic Toughbook) which works with the Full Fighting System (a new role for the signal guys). This is carried by a commander’s aide, for use in stationary mission planning tasks, where greater screen size is necessary and a more complex input device can be used.
Across ACMS, there are certain key capabilities common to all configurations for the trials including; GPS navigation, Blue Force Tracking, red force marking, ‘Medic’ Alert, ‘Contact’ Alert, text messaging, reception of video from remote sensors and round corner firing.
Talking on the handphone while driving is supposed to cause accidents. So I can't see how so much gadgets is gonna help during an intense firefight.
Anyway, I can see the advantages of these Christmas tree gadgets. But let's hope we don't go overboard and end up with our soldiers becoming clumsy robots.
I'm sharing with you the declassified version of the
trial report (based on early versions of the equipment). While it is true that during the trial phase:
(i) 96% of users found that the Helmet Mounted Displays (HMD) hindered dismounted movement at night;
(ii) 78.3% found this to be the case during daylight and a clear majority found it adversely affected aiming throughout the day; and
(iii) that ACMS had encountered problems dealing with very harsh environments and there had been issues with overheating and systems overload,
please note that a number of options were being looked at, including see through HMD, alternative display location and a recent technology – membrane displays.
This ONLY means that over time, when the cost of new technologies comes down, the HMD will be changed.
One of the major findings from the trials is the saving in time ACMS has provided. In trials to measure reaction time to enemy contact while en route, time dropped from
20 minutes to less than 6 minutes.
The current Proposed Equipping Scale for ACMS consists of the section commander and above being equipped with the Full Fighting System, with team leaders and below being given Basic Fighting System with basic functionality. This recommendation again is based on trial data and there was no significant difference between ACMS implementations down to all troopers or just section commanders.
With the introduction of ACMS, with new intelligence information flowing to users almost twice as quickly, down from 13 to 7 minutes. Effective distribution of the information was also found to have improved.
In all the training missions that I can recall, reservists - the bulk of SAF - were tired even without all these fancy gear and body armour. It was often chaotic, and messy and the last hing you want is people trying to access computer equipment.
We are not SWAT.
I would start with a small radio for every man, but beyond that, all the fancy gear, could be information overload.
SWAT is a police function - why bring it up here in a discussion on infantry of the 'future' matters? And how would giving a radio to every trooper help - other than to clutter up the command net (especially since you say you are signal trained)? Chino, please take the trouble to understand the system before making such throw away comments.
As previously stated, ACMS allows the section to call upon fire support systems that aren’t held at the section level to engage specific targets they do not have the capability to engage effectively.
Further, one of the goals of ACMS is to enable the section commander to “see one block away”, via a virtual presence. The ACMS trials have used a Worn Array Sniper Detection Systems and a Round Corner Firing attachment. The latter is integrated on the SAR 21 assault rifle allowing aiming through the weapon’s optical sight via a camera, with the display having multiple positions for viewing. The camera is designed to flip sideways with just one hand action, back to a normal weapon sight configuration. Tracked and wheeled, low cost small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) and Micro Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) have also been trialled with ACMS. The integration of tactical sensors has been factored into the architecture from the start to cope with bandwidth and power consumption considerations, although the major concern in this area has been how to manage costs.
nfloorl: I am amused. 