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

261–270 of 310 posts

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

#261

Post by ativzzz »

chrisseaton wrote: post #259
ativzzz wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What 'love' do you think the US should have given to Japan to stop them attacking? Oil and military equipment. > After the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 and French Indochina in 1940, the United States began to restrict trade with Japan. In 1940, it ceased exporting airplanes, airplane parts, aviation fuel and machine tools to Japan, and in 1941, it stopped the export of oil. This intensified the Japanese need…

> it was a war situation for the US anyway Right.... so we needed a strong military, right? No point relying on 'love' alone?

Right, I agree with your premise.

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

#262

Post by crakhamster01 »

Reading through these comments, it sounds like most people assume these will be used as some sort of enemy targeting overlay for soldiers on the frontline. Is there any reporting to back this?

My understanding was that HoloLens had found usefulness in enterprise settings for applications like machine/vehicle maintenance, quality assurance, repairs, etc. Why would that not be the case here?

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

#263

Post by navi0 »

blunte wrote: 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…

“... what if we waged peace as fiercely as we are prepared to wage war?” Bill McDonough (2002) https://mcdonough.com/writings/waging-peace-intelligent-desi...>

If the US spent a fraction of what it spends literally lighting money on fire with missiles and bombs, I’d bet we’d see a big decline in non-geostrategic hostilities or non-rogue actors (i.e., except for China, Russia, or the Saddam Hussein’s of the world). Terrorist movements arguably win support because of the lack of good government and economic opportunities of the populations they purport to rule.

The worry then becomes how the money is spent, which companies win the contracts (e.g., Buy American provisions), and perceptions of vassal states, but historically, it has been a successful strategy and is similar to what China is doing with its Belt and Road Initiative.

If armed insurgency means the loss of a decent percentage of GDP thru wealth transfer, then it’d lessen some of the incentives and reasons for armed conflicts. It’d also be important to make sure funds are distributed equitably with a country and not under the World Bank model.

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

#264

Post by Balgair »

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…

I work on AR/VR in the pharma field. It's not super close to downrange applications, but I may be able to handle some questions.

To your concerns, I think they are very valid. Weight, as always, is a primary concern for the infantry. The Hololens2 is not a light system to just wear, let alone with a helmet. Additional issues like battery, signal, and other unforeseens are likely large concerns too.

That said, I think that the ability to quickly and seamlessly integrate all the data that is coming in may have some advantages. Giving warfighters a way to view all the data in real-time is a goal worth spending some money on. The recent Nagorno-Karabakh war has shown that the digital/cyber aspect of war has a likelihood of being a vital factor in future conflicts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict

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

#265

Post by quickthrowman »

tartoran wrote: post #231
quickthrowman wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (MSFT) didn’t budge ??? The 2:00-2:05 (CDT) 5 minute candle for MSFT was a 2% move, that’s not nothing for a 1.77T company lol The candle low was 234.47 and the candle high was 239.10, this is in a 5 minute span

You're right. I just expected a larger dent in price but you're right, MS is too massive. I should have said it barely budged instead. What's $21.9B among titans anyway?

It’s a 10 year contract, up to $21.9B. The consensus forecast for 2021 revenue by MSFT is 164B, 2.19B is 1.25% of that.

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

#266

Post by Arrath »

crakhamster01 wrote: post #262

Reading through these comments, it sounds like most people assume these will be used as some sort of enemy targeting overlay for soldiers on the frontline. Is there any reporting to back this? My understanding was that HoloLens had found usefulness in enterprise settings for applications like machine/vehicle maintenance, quality assurance, repairs, etc. Why would that not be the case here?

I would expect the plan is to do it all.

Logistics guy wearing a set checking in the latest supply run or flight, looking at a crate brings up the manifest of contents.

Mechanic looking over an engine, overlay brings up blownup diagrams, teardown instructions.

Squad leader can pipe in drone overflight feeds, target air strikes and support fires, etc.

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

#267

Post by Arrath »

warpech wrote: post #244
cbozeman wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AIUR - Augmented Infantry Universal Reality headset Patch 1.76 notes * Fixed a bug that occasionally caused friendly units to display as hostile ones. * Corrected AR ammo counter to correctly match actual rounds in small arm. * Adjusted networking code to ensure headsets remain synced with team leaders. And hundreds of other potentially dangerous and hilarious patch notes... Looking forward to everyone saying, "My li…

FTFY: Corrected off-by-one error in the AR ammo counter to correctly match actual rounds in small arm. ;)

New bug: Counter follows strict definition of small arm, only displays count of rounds in the chamber while ignoring the magazine/belt.

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

#268

Post by tetris11 »

Balgair wrote: post #264
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…

I work on AR/VR in the pharma field. It's not super close to downrange applications, but I may be able to handle some questions. To your concerns, I think they are very valid. Weight, as always, is a primary concern for the infantry. The Hololens2 is not a light system to just wear, let alone with a helmet. Additional issues like battery, signal, and other unforeseens are likely large concerns too. That said, I think…

Integrate data for who? I feel the common footsoldier is not the aim here, this is just more metrics for the comms to use and if that.

My scepticism lies in the fact that bulletproof vests, widely used across different countries, was not an invention of the overfunded military-industrial complex, but an ex marine who hacked it together in the back of his garage with a rusty fork.

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

#269

Post by ectopod »

chrisseaton wrote: post #252
ectopod wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God forbid anyone would imagine how this would this work. I wonder which scenario is more plausible, the one you responded to, or the one linked below? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652386

Well let's get it into troops' hands and give it a go and find out!

I take your point, but I think you're unreasonably optimistic. It's worth a try, but $22 billion?

On the other hand, maybe you're right. We're both British. What do we care if the US government spunks all this money up the wall? The only downside is if they sell it to the MOD before it's working.

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

#270

Post by mrkstu »

RestlessMind wrote: post #236
mrkstu wrote: 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.

Microsoft is an American company[1]. Supporting government entities, including army, is essential to long term survival of any nation. If you believe that supporting your government/military is not essential, please go and take some history lessons. Pacifist societies are always conquered and occupied by their invaders; military might is essential (though not sufficient) for a thriving independent society. [1] yes, I…

Note that I didn’t state an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the company’s or employee’s stances, just reminding people that a corporation, at it’s heart, is a mechanism for making money.
Post reply on HN