Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmrobertson | Hacker News Reader

Sounds like a lot of power reqs, and therefore a lot of AA/AAA batteries. For many of the more tech-forward piece of equip the Army produces, there is a heavy dependency on batteries to the tune of 10xAAA for ~2hrs of consistent use, for example. That sort of burn rate turns into massive, massive, MASSIVE battery requirements for even 24 hr operations. There simply is not enough ruck space.

That's all to say, these ideas sound great. But the odds that the Army has a combat-loaded Soldier + ruck try to carry whatever comes out of this before fielding it all to the force are rather low. Or, solve power source first.

View on HN

What's a 'ruck'? The US term for a pack carried on your back?

They keep suggesting ideas like a single battery pack and a power distribution system integrated into your vest. But I think that'll end up very much like '14 competing standards... now 15 competing standards.' You already have systems needing AA, AAA, and CR123A. You can never balance how many you need as well so you're wasting and running out of AAA when you have tons of AA still left.

I also feel terrible when I get back from just a couple of days on the ground and have to recycle (no idea how they recycle them, let's be pessimistic and calling it really throwing away) a KG or more of batteries.

A rucksack is a backpack. The term has become more common in civilian use but was primarily from military use. According to Wikipedia it's from German, not sure how it entered the US/UK military lingo.

Ah - I had heard the term 'rucking' now I think about it.

> not sure how it entered the US/UK military lingo

'Ruck' is definitely not UK military lingo! Talking about a 'rucksack' sounds extremely civilian to my British ears.

The UK military term is 'bergen' or 'daysack' or something smaller.

Wikipedia claims UK military uses the term, I added that only from there. It's definitely common in US military lingo and the military-wannabes (see the many civilians or law enforcement who buy GoRuck rucksacks and attend Go Ruck events). I probably should've limited my comment to US-only, but went with what Wikipedia said and added it.

Rucksack is literally the German word for backpack.

Rucksack means backpack in German.

'Rücken' being 'back' and 'Sack' being... 'sack' or 'bag'.

ruck = very large hiking backpack that's made out of pretty durable non-rip waxed type of fabric with a large frame. Great for carrying a lot of heavy stuff a long distance. Issue is, w/ a load that means your really seriously heading out to do something... there isn't much extra room.

But then add the extra batteries for the current radio system that's most widespread in the force (ASIPs, usually carry 1 to 2), with this 4''x 2'' battery packs for ASIPs that in turn take up a lot of space (carry 3-4 spares), and then extra ammo, and then the 'portable' equipment for optics or the heavy weapon systems that tend to be deemed 'portable'

... there just literally is no. more. room. And then there's some more added.

These types of cool new tech, which are battery powered, are hamstrung by the simple fact of "how do I carry a massive amount of batteries for all this?"

So it in turn puts soldiers and leaders in a really precarious position of either having to fight a tough battle of stating all of the obvious that I said above, getting told to bring it all out anyways, and then not really being able to. So do we hope we don't get asked "where is X-equipment, is it on your person," or do we lie, or do we what?

Since this article came from USMA, it's a good place to lead upstream conversation on this sort of core issue.

And integrating power into the vest? Those already weigh an intense amount for a ~200 # male w/ full combat load and plates, and are bulky as it is...

No integrating the power distribution into the vest - the cables. So power goes down your sling to your rifle to deliver power for optics, lasers, torch etc, and up a cable to your helmet for more optics, and so on. The battery lives on your belt kit I think in prototypes I've seen.

I don't think you would want a power cord going from your vest from your rifle. If it gets caught on something you either get stuck or your rifle loses power.

There is a lot of work on making a powered accessory rail for rifles though, so that everything on it would share the same battery. I thought that battery would always be on the rifle though.

Fight w/o a weapon slinged for a ton of reasons, 'locking' a cable set into a rifle usage creates many problems w/o going into specifics

Any reason they don't use rechargeable batteries? No power to charge them? Too hard to set up the infrastructure? Don't last enough charges to make it worth it?

Power to charge them. Those rechargers are slaved into m1097s (vehicles), generators, and the like. That's a logistical non-starter, even assuming an acceptable consumption rate if you're out for ~24 hr missions, or 24 hrs as a planning factor.

but really quantify the consumption rate, ~10xAAAs burned over 2 hours of consistent use is dead accurate, and thats 1x piece of equip. So rechargeable or not, the in-mission load is the problem

Thanks for the info!

> single battery pack and a power distribution system integrated into your vest

This could be really bad potentially, I think the average weight of just a normal vest they bring with ammo is between 40-80 lbs.

There would have to be several refactors to reduce the current weight before introducing the weight of batteries. I wonder if you could reduce the weight of bullets for CQB ammo. You don't really need a bullet to travel several hundred yards in a CQB/Tunnel environment. If so, it would make sense to have a special weapons system like a long barreled SAW with a thermal scope.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You're already carrying these batteries. The idea isn't to carry more batteries - it's to carry the same batteries but share them between all devices. The weight should stay the same, or go down as you have less battery packaging.

> I wonder if you could reduce the weight of bullets for CQB ammo. You don't really need a bullet to travel several hundred yards in a CQB/Tunnel environment.

not a modern combat expert, but this seems like it would also reduce the ability to penetrate armor. 5.56 is already a pretty small bullet, so you would mostly end up reducing the amount of powder.

I like the idea - but doesn’t it also introduce a single point of failure?

Why don't they use 18650 batteries now?

have to think about what the power source for those would be, in turn. It's more of an issue of consumption rate

Reply on news.ycombinator.com