Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 3597710" data-attributes="member: 9254">While I think that &quot;first world&quot; militaries will be keen to equip troops with external gear, I doubt they'll go whole hog for implants.&nbsp; Implants are a &quot;sunk&quot; cost into a particular troop while equipment can be reassigned.&nbsp;&nbsp; It also will entail a &quot;retraction&quot; cost to remove any military-only gear.&nbsp; Lots of personnel only serve a tour or two.&nbsp; Conversely, career troops have an unpleasant upgrade cycle as they repeatedly go under the knife.&nbsp; &nbsp; Plus in combat zones cyber&nbsp; &nbsp; is an item of value that increases the likelihood of kidnapping or bodysnatching.&nbsp; I'd say that only special forces (intentionally using small letters to denote all of the special combat teams) would be equipped with augmentation and even then it would be as subtle and passive as possible.&nbsp; Digestive expansion, sleep regulator and enhanced articulation are the big ones, IMO.&nbsp;&nbsp; Digestive expansion is handy on long ops where the troops could carry unconventional rations (e.g. high calorie &quot;sawdust&quot;).&nbsp; Sleep regulators mean more quality operational hours and enhanced articulation makes them better runners/sneaks/climbers/jumpers/swimmers/etc, the specific stuff that sf tends to do on the way to/from the &quot;meat&quot; of the mission. Some particular MOSs might wind up with implants, but they should generally be the smallest percentages of the force.&nbsp; Pilots, for instance, would get VCRs and jacks but active duty pilots only comprise about 3% of the U.S. Air Force.&nbsp;&nbsp; Ground forces, like armored divisions, tend to have a similarly low ratio of front line combat vehicles vs. support.&nbsp; At one point in time, the US 1st Armored Division had ~13,500 troops and only 200 tanks and 200 bradleys.&nbsp; They had another ~6200 other vehicles but the bulk of those would be supply vehicles (M1s get about 2mpg and suck down a lot of fuel on idle) and repair.&nbsp;&nbsp; Giving every tank/IFV two VCR equipped troops still only nets us about 5% active duty (MOS) riggers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 3597710, member: 9254"] While I think that "first world" militaries will be keen to equip troops with external gear, I doubt they'll go whole hog for implants. Implants are a "sunk" cost into a particular troop while equipment can be reassigned. It also will entail a "retraction" cost to remove any military-only gear. Lots of personnel only serve a tour or two. Conversely, career troops have an unpleasant upgrade cycle as they repeatedly go under the knife. Plus in combat zones cyber is an item of value that increases the likelihood of kidnapping or bodysnatching. I'd say that only special forces (intentionally using small letters to denote all of the special combat teams) would be equipped with augmentation and even then it would be as subtle and passive as possible. Digestive expansion, sleep regulator and enhanced articulation are the big ones, IMO. Digestive expansion is handy on long ops where the troops could carry unconventional rations (e.g. high calorie "sawdust"). Sleep regulators mean more quality operational hours and enhanced articulation makes them better runners/sneaks/climbers/jumpers/swimmers/etc, the specific stuff that sf tends to do on the way to/from the "meat" of the mission. Some particular MOSs might wind up with implants, but they should generally be the smallest percentages of the force. Pilots, for instance, would get VCRs and jacks but active duty pilots only comprise about 3% of the U.S. Air Force. Ground forces, like armored divisions, tend to have a similarly low ratio of front line combat vehicles vs. support. At one point in time, the US 1st Armored Division had ~13,500 troops and only 200 tanks and 200 bradleys. They had another ~6200 other vehicles but the bulk of those would be supply vehicles (M1s get about 2mpg and suck down a lot of fuel on idle) and repair. Giving every tank/IFV two VCR equipped troops still only nets us about 5% active duty (MOS) riggers. [/QUOTE]

Verification