Evaluation: Subjective

• The bad bits: “I personally know about officers and NCOs that would use this to micromanage them, “go a bit more to the left", “don’t go that way", “don’t do that", which is a pitfall in itself. But that’s more about leadership culture, and not the technology.” —INF2
• “There is a lot that indicates that such a system may produce information overload during high-intensity, steel versus steel, warfare. Where it is a matter of minutes or hours until a unit has either been eliminated or eliminated the enemy. [...] For units conducting stabilization missions or mentoring in for instance Iraq then I think such a system have a completely different role, majorly due to the very low acceptance for loss of life during such international missions” – INF2

​

Evaluation: Subjective

• Good complement with existing tracking systems
• Potentially better suited for low-paced missions
• Challenges with respect to leadership culture
• Future design needs to integrate well with existing systems
• Interface with BMSs currently in use
• Sensors integrated in clothing

​

Conclusion

• R1: Improving current MO
• Augmented SA through soldier wearables could provide better combat effectiveness in terms of increased operational tempo (e.g. position and physical states are known much faster)
• R2: Enabling autonomous information acquisition and dissemination
• Sensors interfacing important rifleman data (e.g. position and biometrics) effectively reduces voice-based information updates to leadership elements
• R3: Viable prototype
• Low cost COTS equipment and open source software entirely made the prototype possible, where most software can be utilized in future versions

​

See the paper for further details, or Langleite’s thesis for complete data: http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-89958

Future work

Thank you

​

​

​

​

​

​

Questions?