Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

reuters.com

81–90 of 310 posts

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#81
post #4

People on the ground never have use for such tech. These deals are all political and the actual equipment arrives by the truckloads and sits unboxed. When people rant about ridiculous military budgets and spending it isn't about cutting soldiers' salaries but shit like this.

This is probably related to training.

Apparently, training is quite expensive - actually flying planes or firing guns and missiles, especially large ones, is expensive.

I think in an ideal world they would want to just strap soldiers into 'the matrix' and train them for free in a computer. Maybe they are hoping that they can do the cheap parts of the training with AR headsets on, and see the results of what they are doing (firing a very expensive missile at a helicopter target that would burn fuel if real) in simulation?

Traditionally I understand this has been done by shouting 'bang' and pretending a helicopter exploded. Do Hollywood special effects that only they can see actually make soldiers more effective?

Huge military research budgets usually mean that this kind of spending is driven by something like a clinical trial - maybe a 3rd military research contractor trained some soldiers the normal way, and some with VR, and then compared their performance at doing 'the real task'.

This was probably then sold as a cost saving.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#82
post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

When we say "military spending", much of it is not actually spent on wasted resources - it is sort of welfare for the military industrial complex and its dependent people.

It is just like social security, medicare etc, some amount is earmarked for a different group.

What we shouldn't assume is that "not spending on military" automatically implies spending on stuff that is actually good for the country.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#83
post #33
post #4

People on the ground never have use for such tech. These deals are all political and the actual equipment arrives by the truckloads and sits unboxed. When people rant about ridiculous military budgets and spending it isn't about cutting soldiers' salaries but shit like this.

The army has a little under 500K active-duty soldiers. As a gross overestimation, if they were delivering one headset per soldier, napkin math shows: $22B / 500K = $44K per headset. Even if the tech were super useful and every single soldier got one, that price tag seems absolutely absurd. How can anyone be okay with this?

contract award doesn't mean all 22B was spent, that often means the contract ceiling where money can be obligated to it as we buy

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#84
post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

There are about 300 million US citizens. 21.9 billion split evenly is $73 per person. And this is a multi year contract. It’s a lot of money, but not a huge amount divided across the population. This money likely also generates ancillary US jobs so the cost to tax payers might not be as bad as it sounds.

Half of the US family has less than $500 in the bank. A large portion of people spent less than $10 per day on food. That's an absurd stand to argue that people can afford to go hungry for 7 straight days just so the military get some headsets.

I'm not into heavy politics. But if you want to argue about job creation, I can bet that spending the above money on infrastructure (like last mile fiber internet) will create multiple magnitudes more jobs/opportunities for the economy than this.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#85
post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

There are about 300 million US citizens. 21.9 billion split evenly is $73 per person. And this is a multi year contract. It’s a lot of money, but not a huge amount divided across the population. This money likely also generates ancillary US jobs so the cost to tax payers might not be as bad as it sounds.

nahh just give me $73

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#86
Huh, I find it weird that Amazon and Msft fought so rabidly for the $10B JEDI contract, and this $22B contract seems to have gone through without any fanfare.

This is 10x what Facebook paid for Oculus.

I wonder what MSFT showed to them in the demos. I imagine it must have been mindblowing.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#87
post #5

And here, ladies and gents, is why companies like Microsoft, will eternally resist getting aligned with internal employee groups Resisting selling to government entities, whether ICE or the Army. There is way too much money to be lost.

This makes me happy as we don’t lose out to technologically leapfrogging China and their military.

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#89

Anyone work this technology and can talk about it (without breaking whatever NDA of course)? I'm a former infantryman and ... let's just say I'm _extremely_ skeptical of this kind of technology for all but the most niche use-cases (think, AR for the driver in the hole of the truck). Obviously for pilots stuff similar to this has been around for a while, but the article is not really clear about how exactly this would…

Mission planning in the field, reducing costs for the field tents that the more senior officers use, 3d maps with plans shared to the team

Imagine Battlefield like HUD for the soldiers, green is friendly, red is adversary. Think of these as a part in an overall sensor fusion and information asymmetry in the field. There are larger initiatives around info fusion across the branches and the real-time access to those who need to know

Re: Microsoft wins $21.9B contract with U.S. Army to supply AR headsets

#90
post #18

I don't look like a hippie, but I totally subscribe to the idea of "make love, not war". I imagine what the possibilities would be if we funded general non-military projects with the kind of money that goes into the military. Trillions have been spent on wars or war preparation, and of course the net result is worsening for humanity. What if instead that money were spend on helping humanity? Do we really need a confl…

How well does your idea work in practice if we look at examples from history? Before the Second World War Lloyd George tried to make love not war with Germany. How did that end up? Sometimes the bad people are just absolutely intent on fucking you up no matter what and you need to be able to defend yourself.

Right, but our gnee-jerk response can't just be to smash the pedal on military spending. You need to have a strategy for trade and innovation.
Post reply on HN