Talk:Future Force Warrior

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

The part about taking the helmet off when captured isn't too clear. Whats the point, to make the helmet non removable, or to electrocute the enemy? As an aside, having the IV tube permanently fitted? sounds icky. Hellfire83 18:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uh this article seems to be based more on computer games and spin than actual factual information it is also written in the style of one of those terrible American "Huge Machines with Beefy Men Driving Them" television programmes it's hardly wikipedia quality - Frinkmakesyouthink

I think it was fine until it was edited to include lots of references to 100,000V, etc. I'm not sure if its made up or just very badly worded by an overly keen person. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about the project and so I'm unqualified to edit it drastically. Hellfire83 12:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure most of it is made up. But I won't do anything about it until I get some more assents. Sometimes the military comes up with really wacky ideas... Mj 12commando 07:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a mind to completely rewrite this entire page. A lot of this is taken from the How Does Stuff Work link at the bottom of the page, and, as I suspsct, the Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter video game. The actual Army Future Force Warrior page has nothing on that MR-C rifle and much of this article seems really out there. I believe some of it is based off the FFW Concept, which was the high-end goals, but the actual product development is much more scaled back: the FFW Concept was, and I quote the Army, "this conceptualization is not U.S. Army doctrine, nor is it intended to answer every question raised by the Army After Next. It is intended to raise questions, stir imaginations, and start dialogue about how best to serve and equip our warfighters in the near future." For instance, the 6 day power source has been scaled back to a 24-hour individual power source, with squads being able to operate autonomously for up to 72-hours.--YoungFreud 08:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone appears to really be taking the p*ss with editing the information. Might make a nice sci-fi story background though. Hellfire83 17:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redone. Let's just see how long until we get people screaming at me leaving out the unsourced text. --YoungFreud 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the sentence about the MR-C is not right. The US army has scrapped both the XM8 and the XM29 project, which are standard 5,56 mm, and not adopted the FN SCAR in 5,56 / 7,62 mm in a large scale. The introduction of a caseless round could in fact mean a great step forward in small arms technology, but there is no info yet about what Army or DoD think about that or the interesting MR-C mock-up in particular (until sources are given). It is also likely that the new round would be 6,8 mm, whether it is caseless or not.

But another part of the article is more disturbing. It's the first paragraph of "Weapons Subsystem" with info about the pistol-like weapon of the black-ish mock-upped Future Warrior Concept, which has nothing really to do with the Future Force Warrior. If I'm not totally wrong about this, it should be removed instantly or moved to the Future Warrior article.--145.254.71.23 15:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the additional information about the MR-C appears to be taken from the Ghost Recon game. I left it in as a compromise to whoever was posting exaggerated data about the system.

I'd rather keep the Future Warrior Concept information in. Natick lists both the Future Force Warrior and Future Warrior data sheets under the same Future Force Warrior heading. I believe the Future Warrior is the end goal of the FFW project, what the Army and DARPA actually want the project to live up to. I also think that Future Warrior was relabeled the FFW. Personally, I'd rather have all these American infantry projects, like Land Warrior and SIPES, collapsed into a single page, so we can show a timeline over the past 20 years.--YoungFreud 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the MR-C is BS. The only mention sites with any info about it are related to Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and an airsoft company. Putting "MR-C rifle"[1], "MR-C assault rifle"[2] and "Crye Associates Modular Rifle"[3] in quotes only brings up 1-14 sites, all of them related to that game. The last one brings up Wikipedia mirrors aswell. Is there any actual sources to back it up?--Kross ^Talk 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crye website only has pictures of "mockups" of the rifle and no actual info. Also, the army has declared ANY rifle as their next weapon. The possibly of this being BS has risen greatly.--Kross ^Talk 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the MR-C wiki that is pretty much all information avalible on it. No mention of the action at all. 58.7.180.87 09:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?

Ok, how do I apply this page for protected page status? I am getting awfully sick of this anonymous poster coming in and continuing to remove sourced information and add unsourced info to this article. I do not have all the time in the day to do this crap.--YoungFreud 21:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just applied for semi-protected status, on the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection page. Not sure if it'll be approved though Hellfire83 11:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't approved, for now we're just meant to add to watchlist and revert whenever it gets vandalised. Hellfire83 08:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Correction

Most of the article is not made up. The Future Forces Warrior effort was renamed from the Objective Force Warrior concept, aka Objective Warrior, aka Objective Force. Google those latter terms and you will get some older, but reliable information sources. Any statements claiming specific subsystem selections are probably uninformed and fictional (as in the case of the specifics of the MR-C, whereas a significantly different weapon is specified and envisioned). There are many components of the system that are under active trial. Final configuration decisions are unlikely to have been made at this time. Undid more vandalism on this talk entry. ThreePD 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land Warrior and Future Force Warrior

How are these two articles/projects related? It's not really clearly stated in either articles, although this article makes a fleeting reference to LW, is one of them an offshoot of the other or were (are) they running concurrently? Both entries on these projects seem to run parallel to each other in terms of their objectives, should we consider a merger or at least some significant references betw. both articles? --Seng Yew 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article sort of explains it. [4] LW appears to be a particular contractor response to a segment of the FFW overall program. ThreePD 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of the details regarding the MR-C are fiction, it is indeed a real concept for a next-gen assault rifle. I know most of you are a little reluctant to believe in a weapon first made popular by a video game, but at the Crye website, the MR-C mockup images are available, and the US Military is a listed client. Regardless of what the future rifle is called, it will be from Crye, so long as they dont screw up or displease the military, and it will resemble the MR-C. I also know someone who has family working in military tech, and they work with the military and contractors for weapons. The MR-C designs are being looked into. It has a heck of alot better chance than the XM8 did, because sci-fi as it sounds, it is truly an amazing weapon system. Caseless would be great for the Army.

I have been following this system avidly from a semi-insider point of view of someone who will probably get to use these systems, and this is the first mention I have ever heard of the MR-C. The XM29 was a case of technology being about 10 years behind the desires of the military. The XM8 by H&K stood a very good chance of being adopted and then was suddenly sunk. Possibilities include strong lobbying efforts from American weapons companies who did not like the idea of awarding the contract for the standard Army rifle to an overseas corporation, or budget cutbacks in an effort to deal with the occupation of Iraq. The MR-C though? Not a peep. As far as Land Warrior goes, it's one of the components of the Future Force Warrior. You have Land Warrior, Air Warrior, Any-Other-Warrior, each of which is a configuration meant for soldiers in a specific battlefield role. Gahread 10:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Warrior Block 3

Is it me or is there two 'Air Warrior Block 3' sections listed next to each other? It's late and I'm tired so somebody that can see straight and knows the subject may wanna check that --Streaky 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second image

Why does the guy on the left have an Xbox 360 controller? Unicyclopedia 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's used to control an unmanned ground vehicle, which he's viewing through his HMD. Ratamacue 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the Air Warior Section

Took out all the needless flattery that made it look like an advert.

Raikoh Minamoto 16:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial references provided, more corrections, updates, and citations needed

I provided externally linked references to reliable sources for verification of the first paragraph statements. More corrections, updates, and citations are still necessary in order to make this a reliable article, in my opinion. ThreePD (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HUD

Are there any future plans to build the Warrior and Air Warrior helmets to be similar and have a built-in head-up display, or is that still just sci-fi fantasy? 72.224.248.129 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Add to Section, "Popular Culture"

Reference to War Hammer 40,000's "Space Marines", and, BattleTech's, Clan Warrior's, "Elementals". -Though, in the end, there could end up being thousands of references to fictional power armor; sorry! 76.90.73.32 (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 2010-08-16 T03:01 Z-7[reply]

How outdated is this?

This article is in present tense, and indicates FFW is part of Future Combat Systems. However, the FCS article indicates the program was cancelled years ago, replaced by BCT Modernization, which opens in past tense with the stated date range of 2009-2010. Was FFW cancelled several stages ago? Is this article severely outdated? Some guy (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I changed the article to past tense. Some guy (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/land_warrior/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Future Force Warrior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725220651/http://www.natick.army.mil:80/soldier/media/fact/individual/fw.htm to http://www.natick.army.mil/soldier/media/fact/individual/fw.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]