Million-dollar prize offered for soldier 'power pack' (Lighten Load)

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CNN

Inventors across the country are being asked to find a way to lighten the load U.S. soldiers carry on their backs -- largely due to the high-tech gear that uses batteries -- and the solution will be decided in a $1 million contest.

The Department of Defense is asking a person or team to come up with a way to lessen the weight of the 20-40 pounds of batteries a soldier carries on a typical four-day mission. The batteries power everything from soldiers' GPS systems to their night-vision goggles.

"In many missions the batteries are heavier than the ammunition they are carrying," said Dr. William S. Rees Jr., Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Laboratories and Basic Sciences -- whose office, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, is sponsoring the prize competition. "We'd like to reverse that ratio."

Some missions require as much as 100 pounds of equipment, according to Brig. General Mark Brown who commands the Army's Program Executive Office Soldier program.

"Any weight reduction on batteries would really help us out," Army Spc. Daniel Tinsely, currently serving in Iraq, told CNN's Federick Pleitgen.


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/16/wearable.power.prize/index.html

---

For awhile now, especially in the high altitudes of Afghanistan and the oppressive heat of Iraq I've been convinced U.S. soldiers are overloaded with gear and are not a light agile force which I think helps the insurgents and those fighting them. Anyone else agree?

[truthisfreedom]

1. Seems like gas-powered fuel cells might help.

Dunno what the power to weight ratios are, though.

On edit, perhaps a liquid fueled fuel cell, so they wouldn't have to carry compressed gas. Propane containers are lightweight.

Here we go:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050611/fob7.asp

[jmowreader]

4. Propane containers? No.

Someone would eventually figure out that if you shoot a guy in a certain place, he'll explode and take out five or six of his buddies when he goes up.

[Canuckistanian]

2. Maybe Exxon will dust off that patent for NiMH batteries

A cool million dollar prize and the licensing for the entire US armed forces?

Sweet.

[happyslug]

3. The lessons of Vietnam, mis-learned.

One of the problem during Vietnam was the ability of the Viet Cong to operate at night for they lived in the area. This has occurred in other anti-guerrilla operations (i.e. the locals support the Guerrillas so the local escort them at night, but refuse to do the same for US forces).

To "deny" the night to the Viet Cong, the first night vision goggles and scopes were issued during Vietnam (Infra-red had been used since WWII, but unlike the enhanced night Version used since Vietnam, Infra-red light was PROJECTED and as such anyone with the right lens could use it, thus unpopular by the troops for it gave your presence away via very cheap detection devices).

Since Vietnam the US wants to be able to fight AT NIGHT as while as if it was daylight BUT deny such vision to the enemy. Thus infra-red Light is OUT, but giving every soldier an enhanced Light set of Goggles permit them to use their weapons as while as at night as in the daylight (This is especially true of "Third Generation" night vision goggles).

The problem with this all of these devices is that they all eat up energy. If solders were using LED lights, they give away their position, but a set of LED lights could last all night. These night version goggles enhancing what light that does exist, just eat up power. If you want soldiers to be able to fight at night as if it was daylight you have to give EACH soldier a night vision goggle (and I have seen a lot of soldiers with attachments points on their helmets for such goggles). That leads to a lot of usage and means the need for a lot of batteries.

In the old days, the problem of excessive weight was solved by dividing up the load. The problem is EACH SOLDIER IN THE UNIT HAS THE SAME LOAD. Another solution was to provide another means to carry the load, but given the rough terrain the Soldiers in Afghanistan are operating in, the best solution is the one adopted in Italy during WWII, Mules. The problem with mules is while they can be transported by Helicopters, you need people trained in how to use them. The local know how (The locals in Afghanistan who do know how to use mules, we do not Trust). We could train our own troops, but to do so means admitting we have problem keeping the troops with supply (While the Helicopters like to state the fact that the last 100 mules in the US Army was replaced by 20 helicopters in the 1950s, they tend to ignored that the Helicopters cost over 1 million dollar a piece, while the mules only cost $4000 e piece, so you had $20 million replacing $400,000 worth of equipment and the Mules could stay with the Troops while the Copters could NOT).

The other choices are not much better. The army has been using four wheel off the road vehicles for supply. These suffer from two problems. The four wheel design restricts where they can go (No Road or other access, they can NOT follow the Troops) and given they small size can NOT operate on Highways (The WWII Jeep had the same problems when it came to supporting troops in rough terrain, but at least they could operate on highways). We are assuming ROUGH terrain here, not some road through a Village, where the solders could get new Batteries by simply going back to their supply truck. Furthermore they are TO HEAVY TO CARRY OVER TERRAIN TO ROUGH FOR THEM TO OPERATE.

The last choice, a bicycle, is disliked even more than the mules. While capable of keeping up with the troops and capable of carrying up to 100-200 pounds of equipment. They take up space in Helicopters, but can be toted over Terrain by a soldier unlike motorized vehicles.

The big reason why Mules and Bicycles are not used is who can Lobby the Pentagon. While Bicycles and Mules could help the soldiers carry their load, neither one has a good lobby force behind it. In Platoon or Company level, mules could carry the supplies the soldiers needs between Helicopters drops. The same with Bicycle at squad level. If the bike can NOT be carried through a set of terrain, the soldiers can carry it (or carry the bike and the supplies till the supplies could be re-loaded on the bikes). The soldiers could be trained to push the bikes (as the Viet cong did in Vietnam) as opposed to riding them, so the soldiers has the supplies in needs near him (i.e. on the Bike) as opposed to carrying the equipment on his Back (You can push more than you can carry). The solder should be trained to DROP the bike once actual combat commence (Basic load for Combat should be on his body, the bike carries the spares and additional supplies). US bike makers do NOT have the money to lobby the pentagon, while Vehicle Makers do it all the time.

Notice I mention Afghanistan. The reason I do so, is it is hard to keep supply up with troops in such rough terrain. Parts of Iraq is similar, but most of where the US is fighting is URBAN terrain. In such URBAN Terrain is is easier for Trucks to keep up with the Combat Troops so supply is NOT as important. (n Iraq it would be rare to be have to carry more than one days supplies on one's body, but in those area where that is expected it may be better to have Bikes and Mules to carry the extra weight for BOTH can keep up with Troops in almost every terrain, and thus the better solution may be introducing Bikes and Mules to units operating in such terrain then to look at lighter batteries.

As to Mules, the German Army during WWII supplied each Squad (about 12 men) one mule for its supplies. The US depended on Trucks and kept them at Company level (The trucks could haul more, but the mule could get the supplies closer to the troops). The US used Mules in Italy in WWII do to the terrain (To many steep grades for trucks to operate on). The US did NOT use Mules in France (The front moved to fast and trucks could haul the supplies through the flatter terrain of France).

The problem is HOW TO KEEP THE TROOPS SUPPLIED WITH THE SUPPLIES HE NEEDS. This varies from terrain to terrain, but I suspect the need for a Soldier to carry four days of Supplies is more in rough terrain then in flat terrain. If this is a small unit operation (i.e. Platoon to smaller) the better solution may be to give the men bikes to haul the extra supplies in as opposed to making the supplies lighter. In company level units where Trucks can NOT keep them supply, we may have to start using mules again, just to haul the supplies from where the trucks can go to where the troops are.

I suspect the problem is more small units than Company size units needing the four days of supply, but as I said earlier Bike Makers just do not have the money to lobby the Pentagon the the better solution MAY be a better way to haul the Supplies then in looking to a way to lighten the load.