We are publishing an article written by an employee of a vendor in order to educate and spark debate. The Author, Trevor Finklaire MBE is Director of Business Development at Kord Defence Pty Ltd in Australia. He is a Veteran of the British Army having served operationally in Northern Ireland and Iraq for Desert Storm/Provide Comfort. Since emigrating to Australia he has worked for contractors on the Australian Land 125 program, UK FIST, Austrian Soldat 2015 with some exploratory work with the USMC. Kord Defence is not an advertiser with SSD.
“Engage Quicker – Stay Safer”
The mission of the infantry is to defeat the enemy through close combat. The Infantry closes with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack (US FM7-8, Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad). Historically, to achieve this, the infantry soldier was equipped to defeat the enemy and to survive both battlefield threats and the environment in which he operates. Until quite recently, it was easy to equip an infantryman as he basically had clothing, load carriage equipment and a rifle with iron or optical sights. Little regard was paid to how this equipment worked together when carried by the soldier. However, in the late 90s, with rapid advances in technology, NATO’s Land Capability Group 1 defined a Soldier System as “Integration of everything the soldier wears, carries and consumes for enhanced individual and collective (small unit) capability.” To further break down this definition, five NATO capability domains were established: mobility, sustainability, C4I, survivability and lethality. This heralded the inception of a whole new area of development and innovation! A soldier version of “Robo Cop” was envisaged. NATO set up committees and global conferences flourished attracting the military, defense industry and academia. The vision of a fully integrated soldier system was born.
Initial enthusiasm centered on command, control and information and how the soldier could be included in “the network”; utilizing technology to allow soldiers to know where they are, where their mates are and where the enemy is. Digital radios and battle management systems were developed but were generally cumbersome, heavy and power hungry. Advances in technology have brought down the weight and size to manageable levels, but rather like early mobile phones; they work but there has not yet been an explosive uptake. The C4I equipment needs to be smaller, more reliable and easier to use in the field.
(more…)
