Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 310 posts

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

#211

Post by chrisseaton »

hooande wrote: post #206
chrisseaton wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine being given a mission and being able to recreate the target area in VR and walk around while you conduct your estimate, orders, and rehearsals. Or imagine being able to look over a piece of ground and see the location of your people annotated through AR. Or driving a route and seeing your planned route annotated. Yes please absolutely get this into my hands.

The map is not the terrain. A VR walk through isn't as valuable if the layout of the target area changes. Same with troop locations and routes. Any training or planning use will still come down to quality of intelligence. In general, it seems very unlikely that all of this will work coordinated in battlefield conditions. It would be like pulling off an AR MMORPG, except everyone is carrying their Xbox on their back a…

> The map is not the terrain.

Where did I say it was?

Let the recce give me a 3d sketch map of the target area as they understand it and let me walk around in it. Better than them trying to describe it and me imagining it!

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

#212

Post by dogma1138 »

remarkEon wrote: post #3

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…

The PVS-21 is technically an AR night vision system, especially with the optional HUD video module so you already have battle tested AR systems used by infantrymen.

For tanks etc. AR is very useful and is already implemented at least outside of the US, Elbit has a version of their F-35 helmet for tanks and armored vehicles and the Israelis seem to be happy with the situational awareness they gain.

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

#213

Post by [deleted] »

Shacklz wrote: post #118
xd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"their basic needs met plus a little bit of cushion to enjoy life" Who's responsibility is it to meet these needs?

Irrelevant of the answer, it helps in general if your efforts & hard work towards a better life aren't bombed into oblivion

[deleted]

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

#214

Post by hutzlibu »

munk-a wrote: post #180
hutzlibu wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned it a bit different, but in either case - you don't have to starve if you can buy food. And the market was working in europe. So it was more about hunger for power. Because sure, owning something is better than having to buy something.

Pre-WWI gets a lot of rose-tinted views due to fact that a lot of our accounts of living from that time come from well off folks - there isn't much literature and art that came out of the working classes - there were certainly a few good examples but it would become much more prominent when the great depression equalized classes and forced well educated folks to endure the same life the poor had been enduring. I woul…

"I would still consider WWI the last hurrah of prestige wars (where an essentially divine monarch instigated war for personal reasons and had the authority to enforce his will over the entire nation)"

I agree to that, but I would add, that the monarch did not had to enforce their will on the nation. At least germany was very willing to go cheering into war. And I believe england, too and france (without a monarch), too. In russia it was more enforced, but the tsar eventually lost his power and life over it.

It was a nationalistic war - each side fought for the glory and power of their nation (whether with a monarch, or not). And maybe yes, the last big hurah war - where war was welcomed by the majority of the population.

WW2 had to be presented as neccessary and forced upon from the outside. Even in Nazi-germany. Some youth went into the fight eagerly, but most of the elder generations had way too many memories of the last one, which was not so glorious alltoghether.

(Oh and I certainly do not have a rose tinted view of pre WW1.)

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

#215

Post by remarkEon »

dogma1138 wrote: post #212
remarkEon wrote: post #3

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…

The PVS-21 is technically an AR night vision system, especially with the optional HUD video module so you already have battle tested AR systems used by infantrymen. For tanks etc. AR is very useful and is already implemented at least outside of the US, Elbit has a version of their F-35 helmet for tanks and armored vehicles and the Israelis seem to be happy with the situational awareness they gain.

Right, but PVS-21s aren't networked devices are they? I thought the AR "features" were pretty limited and was more an evolution that combined what previous NVG and thermal imaging had done as separate devices. I haven't used them before.

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

#216

Post by manquer »

ahepp wrote: post #194
screye wrote: post #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.

>The contract could be worth up to $21.88 billion over 10 years, a Microsoft spokesman told Reuters could be worth up to I suspect those words are doing a lot of heavy lifting

I don't think so, these statements move stock prices, so SEC regulates what a public company can put out in their press releases / statements like these.

The open ended wording is more likely due to some variability in the services being rendered, for example there could be agreed rate for services with minimum and expected and cap on spends, however the actual value would change during the course of the project, with the quoted value being a reasonable estimate .

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

#217

Post by verdverm »

gizmo385 wrote: post #203
verdverm wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

over 10 years, so like one fast food meal a year per person.

$15 is pretty pricey for fast food.

I would agree, but that's where it's getting to. Certainly less than one decent whisky drink at a bar

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

#218

Post by chrisseaton »

remarkEon wrote: post #209
chrisseaton wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens if you can't, because "authentication"? Aren't your radios already using cryptographic fills? What do you think the difference is?

It totally depends on how authentication would be handled for the headset device. If it's handled like it is for radios, where fills are added on a regular cycle and anyone can pick up and use the device, it's probably fine. If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea.

> If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea.

Lol well why would we do that? Just inventing random problems at this point.

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

#219

Post by dogma1138 »

remarkEon wrote: post #215
dogma1138 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PVS-21 is technically an AR night vision system, especially with the optional HUD video module so you already have battle tested AR systems used by infantrymen. For tanks etc. AR is very useful and is already implemented at least outside of the US, Elbit has a version of their F-35 helmet for tanks and armored vehicles and the Israelis seem to be happy with the situational awareness they gain.

Right, but PVS-21s aren't networked devices are they? I thought the AR "features" were pretty limited and was more an evolution that combined what previous NVG and thermal imaging had done as separate devices. I haven't used them before.

Well they can receive and display a video input from an external module some of those modules are networked and provide sensor fusion.

I’ve seen modules that stream live navigation data, blue force tracking and video feeds. The only difference is that it’s a bulky external module which connected via a cable.

You also have small clip on modules for things like thermal imaging and video recording/streaming.

Other than that the PVS-21 is an AR headset the intensified image is projected on the lenses which allows the user to see through the headset just like any AR headset and it can display data from an external source.

https://www.steiner-defense.com/imaging-systems/cehud-confor...

Edit: It’s just not as sexy and tech loaded as the hololense but honestly I think the PVS-21 model is better the interface with the HMD is optical and the modules become smaller and more capable as technology advances.

It looks like what used to take an external box the size of a hand radio is now wireless has an OLED display and fits in the screw cap of the optical interface port.

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

#220

Post by ahepp »

remarkEon wrote: post #125
nordsieck wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a very obvious analogy here that proves you wrong: nvgs Another example is red dot / holographic gun sights. As an aside, while I agree with you broadly on NVGs, my experience with PVS-7's is that they're basically not much better than naked eyesight (I hope the more modern NVGs are better). The thing that makes NVGs really good is either IR lights or IR lasers.

I think the difference though is all those examples require no more understanding of technology than how to operate a TV remote. Push some buttons, laser goes on. Even zeroing a holo sight is trivially easy. And yes, modern NVGs are a whole different world from PVS-7s.

I would think you could get a lot of utility from the hololens without actively operating anything.

The potential for passive blue force tracking alone seems pretty awesome to me (but you'd certainly know better)

Post reply on HN