Why doesn't the U.S. invest in futuristic battlesuits for its soldiers?

Question

JUST READ THE FIRST 2 PARAGRAPHS (THEY ARE SHORT)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1580531,00.html?cnn=yes


And all this while America has these advanced battlesuit research programs:
http://www.natick.army.mil/soldier/media/fact/individual/FW.htm

http://www.natick.army.mil/soldier/media/fact/individual/FFW.htm

http://images.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_Warrior4.jpg

WHAT DO YOU THINK? I AM KINDA ANGRY. WHY DOESN'T THE PENTAGON SPEND ON THESE IMPORTANT THINGS?

Answer 1

Why? Because they Will say "We are currently researching new technology" when the truth is, it's just to expensive for the US to mass produce something like the Land Warrior(Battle Suit). It kind of ticks me off too but politics rule is always above that of a soldiers.

Answer 2

For the U.S. to spend money into the program, it has to do much better than the current program. For instance, the AHA-64-D has a projected kill rate of 14 times that of an AHA-64-A which has a better projected kill rate than the Cobra attack helicopter.

So will an attack suit greatly help or hinder the troops. First there is a small test, like 6 guys go out in the field and play with it. Then they arm one side of a large force against another force with the present weapons.

Then they look as cost vs capability. Some weapon systems such as the Paladin were deemed too expensive even though it was somewhat better than the Crusader.

The only difference now between the new system and the system used now is the gun camera like what aircraft use. The military already uses the clothes, the rail system on the rifle, the radio headset and the GPS system.

Answer 3

The pentagon is spending money on battlesuits. The current prediction is that they will not be ready for the battle field until 2025 or so. That is when the technologies should be available to make them practical.

For now it is far more practical to spend 20 million dollars on a Stryker that protects 11 men instead of 20 million on a battle suit that protects 1 man. A Stryker will allow 11 men to go 400+ miles at 60+ miles an hour, a battle suit will not.

I too long for the days when our soldiers can wear advanced battle armor. However, you must realize there are some huge hurdles that must be overcome before it is practical to use them on the battle field (protection vs agility, power source, etc.).

Answer 4

That's a good question. The answer is probably "The Dimocrits WON'T allow the money to be spent for Robocop type armored suits." They would rather spend it on pork barrel crap, or to keep the prison population appeased with cable TV, workout facilities, health care, sex changes, kosher meals, and other stupid crap like that instead of saving a few soldiers lives. The Pentagon can't spend what is not doled out to them by congress, particularly the dimocrits. They are doing some research & development on armored suits but I would bet the dims haven't been told of it because the funding would probably be cut off if they knew. Would you really like to help? Write, E-mail, telegraph, and call your Representatives and Senators and beiotch, gripe, moan, and piss about it until they do something positive for our soldiers. Vote them out of office and put some real patriotic loyal (that leaves out all liberals, ALL liberals including Obama and especially Hillary) Americans in office.

Answer 5

The pentagon is spending on research and development of the technologies that will make these suits practical.

Many of the technologies that thes suits require simply do not yet exist.

Answer 6

Believe me we have the best equipment that can be used.I was in the military for 12 years in Special Ops.The US has the most sophisticated equipment that the rest of the world could only wish for.Apparently the Generals haven't deemed it necessary that we use them.It is sad but true.

Answer 7

Relax.

None of those suits is going to prevent a soldier from losing limbs if he is hit directly with a IED.

I know liberals are trying to make the public believe that the government is being negligent, but it is just simply not the case.

Equipment doesn't win wars, people do. Too much equipment can bog a soldier down, making his job harder.

Answer 8

The liberals would rather invest money in a non-existing threat called global warming.

Answer 9

Partly because it still experimental and secondly..it states in your links "FUTURE WARRIOR" which means not available at this time..we need the Libs to open the bank

They got a lot more than I had.....I had a shirt

Answer 10

like many govt programs its all about cost per unit perhow many total needed and then thats when things get really expensive so its all about money as always