SAFFiR, the firefighting robot [VIDEO]

, , ,

For five years, researchers at Virginia Tech have been working on the human-like, bipedal Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot (SAFFiR). Recently, the SAFFiR was successfully tested on the Chatwal, the Navy’s firefighting ship.

SAFFiR used LIDAR (rotating lasers) to navigate through dense smoke across uneven floors. It located hot spots with its stereoscopic thermal imaging cameras, and dowsed a small fire with a hose.

SAFFiR stands at five feet, ten inches and weighs 143-pounds. Its electrical motors are protected from water by raingear.

It may have autonomous in its name, but currently it is controlled by human operators through a console. Eventually, natural language and gestures will be additional control options.

Shipboard fires are a nasty business. Not only do flammable systems and ordinances pose a threat, but also human firefighters may not have the latest training. Indeed, their responses may actually make the situation worse.

SAFFiR is bipedal so it can work in the cramped shipboard environments designed for humans. Eventually humans and unmanned systems will integrate into hybrid firefighting teams.

SAFFiR is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). ONR plans to expand SAFFiR’s duties to include checking for leaks, scanning for corrosion, and taking measurements.

/by

AMREL New Rugged Night Vision Computing Solutions  

, , , , ,

AMREL now offers a full line of turn-key night vision solutions, fully compliant with MIL-STD 3009 and CECOM (CSLP) standards.

“AMREL’s rugged laptops, tablets, and handhelds are the perfect platforms for night vision solutions,” states Kalvin Chen, AMREL’s VP of Operations. “The durability and reliability of our computers makes them practical for both ground and aviation purposes.”

The widespread use of night vision goggles has necessitated the adoption of light restricting filters for mobile computers. Aviation crews must be careful that the light of their laptops and tablets do not blind pilots who use night vision goggles to fly in dark, dangerous areas. Military forces on the ground are keen that enemies cannot detect their presence by using night vision goggles to spot light emitting from their tactical computers.

“Special Forces have used AMREL’s rugged computers for years,” explains Mr. Chen. “We are especially pleased that we can offer them this feature, which enhances their safety by limiting their detectability. Of course, our night vision computing solutions also meet the less stringent aviation standards.”

[layerslider id=”31″]

AMREL’s Night Vision Computing Solutions virtually eliminate all infrared emissions completely, which is important, since night vision goggles usually work in that part of the spectrum. Overall light transmissions are restricted to just 2.5%. Other levels of light suppression are available on request.

AMREL Night Vision Solutions use the industry-leading SafeNight™* filters. These polymeric filters are nonflammable and offer full color rendering, which is important for mapping applications.

AMREL Night Vision Computing Solutions are available for:

  • ROCKY RS11, the lightest, thinnest rugged laptop in the world (13.3” display)
  • ROCKY DK10 fully rugged tablet (12.1” display)
  • ROCKY DB6 handheld, the smallest, fully rugged handheld with full Windows OS (5” display)
  • Other computing platforms available upon request.

For more information, visit: http://computers.amrel.com/?p=7491

*“SafeNight” trademark is property of CEVIANS, LLC – Formerly a division of Wamco Inc.

/by

M1 Abrams Plays Tennis [VIDEO]

,

Are tanks obsolete?  Not if combat involves tennis playing, as the video below demonstrates. No word if the tank can jump over the net if it wins.

After being totally blown away by the M1 Abrams’ speed and agility, I learned this video is FAKED.  Still, this brings up a very real issue.  If tanks in reality can’t play tennis, what are they good for?

Army Chief of Staff Odierno testified that in 2012 before Congress that “…we don’t need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We’re in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don’t need” (Military.com). Congress went ahead and approved the purchase of additional, unwanted tanks. The fact that tanks are produced in Ohio, a critical state in presidential elections is just a coincidence.

Even before Odierno testified, some folks were touting the tank’s demise. Some pointed to the widespread destruction of Israeli armor in the 1973 war by handheld anti-tank weapons as a sign of the tank’s obsolescence. On the other hand, Michael Peck in War is Boring notes that the Israeli losses happened when they violated basic tactical rules, such as failing to support tanks with infantry.

To get an idea about the debate I suggest you read a summary of different points of views in The Atlantic The Wire.  It’s a bit dated, but the arguments are still relevant.

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by

Odierno on Army’s Future

,

Recently, Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno gave a presentation to the Association of United States Army on “Force 2025 and Beyond.” If you want to know what the Army’s head honcho is planning for its future, check out this nifty PDF.

One thing that will definitely not change is the military’s fondness for acronyms. Reading Odierno’s presentation requires a high tolerance for initials as well as an instinctual knowledge about matters such as the difference between USAPRAC and USPACOM. After wandering through his dense forest of acronyms, I came away with the following impressions:

The Army doesn’t have a clue about the future. While it is true that he identifies possible threats, you don’t have to read between the lines too much to know that Odierno has no idea what kind of war the Army should prepare for. This is not a big surprise, and is something that this blog has discussed before (see here).

Odierno’s solution for this quandary?  Among other things, the Army needs “adaptability.”  I suggest you play a drinking game with a buddy. Download the PDF of Odierno’s presentation, and have your friend read it out loud. Every time he says “adapt” or “adaptability,” take a shot. You may want to start off with something light, because you’ll take 6 shots on the first page alone.

Doubling down on technology. Seeing a high-level bureaucrat reject common institutional wisdom is a bit like watching a magnificent sunrise. It has happened before and it will happen again. However, you should still pause and admire its beauty.

Odierno clearly feels like he is operating in a financial squeeze (in real terms, the Defense budget continues to rise). However, he is not following the usual institutional practice of cutting Research & Development in times of austerity. Odierno could have simply followed recent trends and simply off-loaded R&D responsibilities onto vendors, i.e. “I don’t know what we want, but I want you to build it.”

While the Army will use commercial suppliers, Odierno makes it clear that he is not abandoning R&D. In fact, technology and innovation is a big priority and he discusses it a great deal.

While I applaud Odierno’s not sacrificing R&D on the budget chopping block, I do wonder about the US military’s continued reliance on technology to give it an “edge” (or in Odierno-ese, “overmatch capabilities”), especially in counter-insurgency scenarios. Does it make sense to use million dollar missiles to destroy ancient pick-up trucks?

Most US military personnel in the Pacific region belong to the Army. Odierno makes a point of making this point. You know all those folks who say that the Pacific Tilt means cutting the Army’s budget, so that money can be diverted to the Air Force and Navy?  This is Odierno’s way of thumbing his nose at them.

80% of “rotorcraft” will be replaced.  Good time to be a helicopter manufacturer.

High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) will reduce the need for stockpiles.  Yeah! We’re finally going to get ray guns!  Or at least “ray cannons.”

“Alternative sources of water.”  What has the Army learned after fighting for 13 years in an arid environment?  The importance of water.  I wouldn’t be surprised that out of all the technologies the military is currently developing that water purifications and generation end-up being the most world changing.

Healthcare & medicine.  More than a few areas of technological development that Odierno describes involved healthcare of some kind. Considering its skyrocketing cost, not a big surprise.

The future of unmanned systems is so last year. Odierno mentions Autonomous Aerial Resupply as a “potential capability.”  This is the only time he mentions unmanned systems.

I have been optimistic about the role of unmanned systems in US forces (see here). However, their relative absence from a technology-heavy discussion by the Army’s Chief of Staff does raise a red flag. Vendors of unmanned systems have visions of military robots doing everything from flipping burgers to fighting fires. If they want the Army to share that vision, they have some work to do.

“Sustaining investments in the technical workforce is paramount…However, sequestration could undermine these efforts.” Some congressmen have been vigilant in protecting soldiers form budget cuts. Not so much the military’s civilian workforce, which has been hammered by reduced funds. Odierno wants folks to understand that the guys who carry guns and wear camouflage are not the only ones who need protecting. The guys who carry calculators and wear white shirts are also important.

Odierno covers a lot of ground in his brief discussion. The above list is far from complete and only represents my overall impression. His presentation is worth reading in its entirety.

What do you think? What struck you about Odierno’s presentation?

Send your thoughts to: editor@amrel.com

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by

Bomb Suit Runs [VIDEOS]

,

While Unmanned Ground Vehicles have saved countless lives, the “bomb suit” is still a fact of life for Explosive Ordinance Detonation (EOD) personnel.  Somehow, running a mile, and even 5K, in these 80-pound suffocating suits have become charity events.

Why do they do these runs? The world female record holder says it’s part of their training, but EOD people are trained not to run in areas with explosives. I suspect the real reason for these runs is that nobody decides to specialize in detonating explosives, because they like doing sane things.

Group 5K run

Male Record Holder

[layerslider id=”31″]

Female Record Holder

/by

The Great Mysterious Landpower Robot Revolution  

, , ,

Everyone knows that unmanned systems will change everything for land forces.  However, no one is sure what those changes will be.

“It is, of course, impossible to predict exactly how the Landpower robot revolution will unfold.”

The above quote was written by Dr. Steven Metz, the Director of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) as well as research director for the Joint Strategic Landpower Task Force.  While the future is unknown, Dr. Metz argues that it is possible to identify the questions that need to be answered, at least some of them.  Writing on SSI’s websites, his questions include:

  • What is the appropriate mix of humans and robots?
  • How autonomous should the robots be?
  • What type of people will be needed for robot heavy Landpower formations?
  • What effect will robot centric Landpower have on American national security policy?
  • What to do about enemy robots?

Dr. Metz’s article is worth reading in its entirety (view it here). Below are a few highlights as well as some reactions.

Logistics and expense

Dr. Metz quotes Paul Scharre of the Center for a New American Security:

“Uninhabited systems can help bring mass back to the fight by augmenting human-inhabited combat systems with large numbers of lower cost uninhabited systems to expand the number of sensors and shooters in the fight. Because they can take more risk without a human onboard, uninhabited systems can balance survivability against cost, affording the ability to procure larger numbers of systems.”

Unmanned systems have always been seen as economical force multipliers. However, Metz’s and Scharre’s comments imply other benefits as well.

A central weakness of an army is its need for support. Even Israel’s relatively small military, which usually has short logistics lines, is vulnerable. In the run-up to the 1973 war, Egypt quickly mobilized and demobilized its forces over and over. Israel responded with its own mobilization and demobilization of its civilian-based military forces, but this played havoc with its economy.  After a while, they decided that Egypt was just playing games with them; that’s when Egypt attacked.

If the military forces had been unmanned systems, Egypt’s strategy may not have been as effective.  The costs of maintaining a large unmanned force in readiness may be less than mobilizing a large manned one.

Current events validate this way of thinking. The current administration is reducing manpower overseas, while relying more and more on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). Although most people focus on the reduced risk to American lives, it is also clear that it is cheaper to send UAVs to Waziristan than maintain forward placed personnel.

A counterpoint is that robots may not be as cheap as people think they are. Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London wrote:

“The other element of the UAV side in the ISR arena is that people look at a UAV and think, unmanned, surely it won’t cost as much. The UAV actually just shifts to some extent, where the cost comes, in terms of the number of support people, pilots required actually to fly the air vehicle from a ground station, and then the imagery exploitation and analysis teams who run to serious numbers of personnel, obviously deriving great value, in military terms, from these things. But the, kind of, initial notion that these things were going to be cheap doesn’t actually turn out to be necessarily correct.”  (Non-traditional Airborne ISR Makes the Leap from Unconventional to Conventional Warfare – Defense IQ)

We have already seen the reluctance of the military to commit expensive systems to actual combat (some sophisticated fighter jets are rarely used). Are robots ever going to be so cheap that they are essentially expendable?

Rob Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development, DoD Programs sees problems.

“I have firsthand reports from soldiers and officers who have put high tech but good equipment back in the box, and chosen not to use it in operations. The one time they did use a piece of equipment, it was damaged beyond repair by errant enemy mortar fire. Subsequent investigation and paper work was so intrusive and demanding as to create a pain level that ensured the equipment would never be used again. Somewhere the worldview disconnect between operators and widget counters needs to be overcome.”

You do not need a body to be an antibody

Dr. Metz makes an interesting assertion that robots don’t become an ‘“antibody’ in a foreign culture.” This is another way of saying that no one screams “Hide the women! The robots are coming!” Robots do not loot, rape or violate local customs by refusing to take off their shoes in holy places. The author goes as far to call unmanned systems “politically palatable,” and could be useful in certain stages of counter-insurgency efforts.

This may be one of those ideas that make sense, but just isn’t true. Whether you are talking about Yemen, Gaza, or Afghanistan, locals hate and dread unmanned systems. There is a fairly vociferous “anti-drone” movement happening on a global scale. Right now, people are scared of “death from the skies,” but I suspect these negative attitudes could be projected onto Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) as well. Would you like an autonomous lethal killing machine running around in your neighborhood?

Robert Culver thinks that unmanned systems may actually be more culturally problematic than human soldiers. He writes:

“I do believe that there can be and is cultural rejection of ground robots.   As a hetman of my tribe I would be offended if you sent a machine instead of a man.”

What is the appropriate mix of humans and robots?

Dr. Metz discusses this question at length and considers it one of the great imponderables. Unlike the author, I do not consider the mix of humans and robots to be all that mysterious.

Is it really that difficult to decide who and when gets an ISR-oriented tactical UAV or an IED-sniffing UGV? These are more tactical questions than strategic, and the answers should present themselves as time goes on.

Unmanned systems = more war

Dr. Metz speculates that the increased use of unmanned systems will make leaders less hesitant about committing to combat. I have always been skeptical of the “Robots makes it easier to go to war” argument. As noted above, the military has shown reluctance to use some of its best technology due to its expense as well as the risk of enemies capturing and reverse-engineering advance devices. This may be regarded as an updated version of “McClellan-ism,” i.e., “I sure would hate for something bad to happen to my pretty, well-trained soldiers.”

However, I have to admit the evidence seems to support this fear. The President gets a lot of flak for being “weak,” but if you include UAV-strikes, he may have more kinetic actions going on in more countries than any other administration since WW II. He is killing a lot of people in a lot of places for someone who is supposed to be a wimp.

Where’s the revolution?

Rather than make predictions based on an agenda, Dr. Metz’s article stresses how little we know about the future effects of unmanned systems. For example, no one knows where the most influential innovations will come from.

 “Even though it is clear that a revolution will happen, it is hard to tell where it will take place. Will it be the Army’s existing network for innovation, including the schools in the professional military educational system, the battle labs, and the various ‘centers of excellence’? Will it be in the offices of mavericks outside the formal system of innovation? Will it be in cutting edge corporations? Or will it be led by America’s enemies, with the U.S. military reacting as it falls behind?”

Dr. Metz’s above quote is consistent with the overall perception that here is a lack of leadership and vision within the Defense community concerning unmanned systems. For our unmanned system developers and vendors, this may be the most important question of all.  It’s hard to build for a future that hasn’t been defined yet.

Timing is everything

Rob Culver sees the lack of vision for unmanned technology as a function of its development and the needs of the military.

“An idea can be good or bad or even great, depending upon timing. A good idea that’s too early can be viewed as down-right stupid. But a good idea when the technology is mature enough and the need is urgent is brilliant.

“I think unmanned systems and particularly unmanned ground systems are still, believe it or not, premature. Autonomy, the associated technology and other capabilities are not mature enough. Furthermore, the need (other than for counter-IED and route clearance) is not painful enough to truly generate ‘urgent’ needs statements.

“I do believe the future of warfare will include manned/unmanned teaming as we are already beginning to see with aerial platforms. But we control the environment in air space. The same reason that FAA is not quick to clear unmanned/remotely piloted aircraft in national airspace also applies to ground operations during conflict.

“Land forces operate in a different environment than air. There are no ditches, culverts, tunnels and multi-story buildings in the flying drones’ airspace as there will be on the ground. Too many people running around and no easy way to differentiate combatant from non-combatant.

“We have had endless conversations, but no ready answer. A lot of people experimented with heavier than air flight for literally decades, if not centuries before Wilbur and Orville invented ‘flight.’”

Unknown ≠ inaction

According to Culver’s analysis, as technology advances and needs become pressing, the requirements for unmanned systems will become clear.

However, I do not think this need to be a call for passivity. Indeed, the Army may not know it wants a specific solution until it is presented to them.

Vendors can and should take steps to create the future of unmanned systems, including:

  • Developing capabilities that will likely be needed, such as “sliding autonomy” and navigation.
  • Partnering to create “best-of-breed” solutions. This may even require cooperating with our competitors on occasion.
  • Interoperability, interoperability, interoperability. Not just on common control, but on more mundane elements, such as batteries and spare parts.
  • Economy will always matter. In a crisis, the military will throw money at a problem, but the vendor with the cheapest solution that matches urgent needs will have an enormous advantage.

Finally, as an industry we need to step up. We can sit around complaining about the government’s lack of vision for the future, but it is to our advantage that we collectively create that future.

To learn more about the likely future of Unmanned Ground Vehicles,

Contact Rob Culver at (603) 325-3376 or robertc@amrel.com

/by

New Defense Budget [TABLE SUMMARY]

,

Congress overcame its perpetual gridlock and actually passed a Defense budget. In today’s political climate, a budget for the entire fiscal year was no sure thing.  For example, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is only funded to February.

This is good news for Defense vendors who have suffered under budget uncertainty. Take a look at table below for winners and losers.

 

Who gets it How much Comments
Department of Defense $554.1 billion
  • President wanted $554.3 billion
  • $3.3 billion more than 2014 base appropriations
  • More than half of the overall federal budget
Pentagon Procurement $93.8 billion $1 billion more than 2014
Defense R&D $63.7 billion $700 million more than 2014
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) (Afghanistan)   $64 billion $21 billion less than the 2014
Anti-Islamic State Operations $3.4 billion President wanted $5.6 billion
Military Pay Raise Capped at 1%
  • DoD wanted 1.8%
  • Civilian contractors might be laid off
DoD Operation & Maintenance $161.7 billion
  • $1.8 billion more than 2014
  • O&M, traditional budget whipping boy, may have escaped its usual ax, because of worries about military readiness
A-10 Attack Plane $338 million
  • Congress blocks A-10 retirement plans
  • The Warthog lives!
Iron Dome Program $351 million President only wanted $176 million
European Reassurance Initiative $810 million Includes $175 million for Ukraine and Baltics
Navy’s E/A-18G Electronic Warfare Jets $1.4 billion Enough to buy 15 in 2015

A few other highlights

  • The F-35 fighter program gets $240 million more than requested in order to buy four additional jets.
  • The budget maintains the American aircraft carrier fleet at 11.
  • The National Guard and Reserve gets $1.2 billion more than requested for equipment.

Information for this blog post came from DefenseNews and Forbes.

/by

The Return of the IED

, , ,

Thanks to Islamic State, the IED danger has just gotten worst in Iraq, one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. The following story originally appeared in the Counter-IED Report.

ISIS’s latest threat: laying landmines

Militants from the group calling itself Islamic State (IS) are booby-trapping land and buildings with improvised explosive device (IEDs), creating new misery for displaced Iraqi families trying to return home and adding to dangers for government forces working on the front line.

Last week four mine clearance workers died and two were seriously injured when an IED detonated in a house in Zummar, close to Mosul Dam in Nineveh Governorate, in northern Iraq.

Witnesses said the opening of a bathroom door triggered an explosion causing the property to collapse, instantly killing the men. The group, employed by the Iraqi Kurdistan Mine Action Agency (IKMAA), run by the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), were working alongside the Peshmerga, the Kurdish military, who had recently won back the territory from IS.

Aid agencies are warning displaced Iraqis not to rush home to territory reclaimed from IS because of the risk of mines and other explosive remnants of war (ERWs) and have expressed concerns about mined borders areas between different military front lines.

“Large numbers of people are at significant risk,” said Nina Seecharan, Iraq country director for UK-based Mines Advisory Group (MAG) in the Kurdistan capital Erbil.

Omer Hassan, a commercial deminer who went to the scene of the 29 October explosion to help survivors of the accident, said: “There is an immediate need to mark villages like Zummar that are full of dangers,” referring to red posts and flags used by clearance teams.

Hassan, who lost his leg in a landmine accident some 20 years ago and who has dedicated his life to demining, said IS was using crude home-made devices that were easily mistaken for other things.

“They can make booby-traps with everything,” explained Hassan. “You can find a brand-new torch. [IS] knows the Peshmerga need it, so they leave them. The Peshmerga picks it up, turns it on…” The torches are packed with explosives. “You can lose a hand,” said Hassan.

Iraq is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world due to decades of conflict and territorial disputes.

According to the Landmine Monitor, an affiliate of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the most-recently available statistics show up to 1,838sqkm of Iraqi territory is contaminated.

History repeating itself

In recent years intensive efforts to clear up ERWs mean most residential areas are now mine-free, and the bulk of remaining clearance operations are along mountainous border regions between Iran and Turkey where various armed groups had military posts.

However, thanks to IS, landmines are once again a very real danger for Iraqis, and not just in Kurdistan.

According to a 31 October report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), as many as 3,000 ERWs and landmines were scattered across the town of Jurf al-Sakhr in Babil Governorate by a retreating IS.

“The issue of landmines is a major concern for us and one we urgently need to address,” said OCHA spokesman David Swanson.

Ako Aziz, the director of Mine Risk Education at IKMAA, said full details of what happened at the property in Zummar were still to be determined and an investigation had been launched.

He told IRIN that while the team was highly experienced, with some members having up to 15 years in the sector working on marked minefields and clearing ERWs from Iraq’s previous conflicts, they were not used to clearing houses of booby-traps.

“Our deminers are not specialized in IEDs, and need more training and experience,” he said.

“[IS] are very technical in laying out IEDs. They use many different ways and types of IEDs and a very high quality of explosives,” Aziz said. “This is the biggest challenge to the Peshmerga, as [IS] are booby-trapping all areas under their control.”

Raising awareness among the displaced

MAG, the only international humanitarian demining NGO left doing clearance work in Kurdistan, has been running awareness-raising sessions with displaced Iraqi families since June, when IS seized control of Mosul – forcing 600,000 people to flee in a matter of days.

“We’ve been working with displaced families to make them aware of the potential dangers, now and for when they return home,” MAG’s Seecharan explained. “Children who are naturally inquisitive and unable to read danger signs are particularly at risk.”

She said, however, that MAG clearance teams could not assist the military in their clearance operations because their remit was only humanitarian.

“While MAG’s imperative is to take action to prevent harm to civilians and civilian demining personnel, there has to be a clear line between humanitarian clearance in areas where active hostilities have ceased, and activities in support of ongoing military operations,” she said.

There are around a dozen commercial demining operators working in Iraq, including some international firms. Many are contracted by oil and gas companies clearing land for exploration, though some are also working for the government preparing for infrastructure projects and national parks.

Although the expertise is available in country to help the Iraqi authorities clear up the ERWs, the long-running budget dispute between Baghdad and Erbil means Kurdistan does not have sufficient money to take on new contractors.

Iraq also has an obligation to clear all of its landmines by 2018, having signed the Ottawa Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treat in 2007. For some time this target has seemed ambitious, even more so now with so many new devices being laid by IS.

A report by the Landmine Monitor in August 2013, citing the most-recent statistics from Iraqi government agencies, said that since the late 1980s more than 29,000 people have been victims of landmine accidents in the country.

Nearly 15,000 of those casualties – including 6,000 deaths – were in Kurdistan.

In 2012, the latest year for which data is available, there were 84 mine accidents across Iraq with 42 deaths, though many more incidents are likely to have gone unreported. Since 2012, 11 deminers have lost their lives in clearance accidents across Kurdistan, IKMAA said.

/by

US Marine Drum Line vs. South Korean Army Band [VIDEO]

,

US Marine & South Korean Army drum lines stage a very friendly contest.   As we approach the holidays, it’s nice to think that future conflicts will be settled by Battle of The Bands.

This video has received over 3 million hits on You Tube.

/by

Marine Jargon

,

marine iowa jimaOn November 10, the Marine Corps celebrates 239 years of service to the United States of America.  Brought into existence by the First Continental Congress, on 1775 the Marine Corps has seen many battles and brought the fight to the enemy on many shores.

Among themselves, Marines use a special language.  Here is a small sample of some of their jargon, supplied by AMREL’s very own devildog, Richard Barrios, Web Marketing Specialist.  Happy Birthday and Ooh-Rah!

Ooh-Rah!:  The Marine version of “Hoorah!”

UnSat:  Referring to someone who is not organized or very good at their job or task

IT:  Means Incentive Training.  In boot camp this is how punishment was delivered through exhausting exercise.  In the fleet it was a term used to use negative re-enforcement to teach someone how to do it right.

Hollywood Marine:  Marine trained at MCRD San Diego, CA.

Horse shoe:  A hair cut that only Marines really get.  It’s basically a high and tight (Flat top) with the top of the head shaved down.  From above it looks like a horse shoe

 WM: Women Marine.

Unqu (pronounced “Unk”):  Short for unqualified.  Referring to someone who failed their rifle qualifications.  Also refereeing to missing the mark on a task or activity.

Put your E-tool away:  Referring to your entrenching shovel and that your are digging a bigger hole for yourself the more you talk.

Smoking lamp (on or off):  Old Naval term for when it’s OK to smoke.  Now used as a term for free time.

MCD:  Marine Corps Detachment;  Marines stationed on a base that is primarily occupied or run by another branch of service.  Basically you are a guest there for a period of time.

Quarter Deck:  Boot camp reference for the area in which IT is being administered.  In the fleet the term is used when you are in big trouble and you have to stand in front of your Platoon Gunny, First Sergeant, or Officer and explain yourself.  Also known as “Standing tall” or “Standing tall before the mast/Man”.

Standing tall before the mast/man: Refers to the Naval tradition of serving your sentence with a lashing while standing against the mast of a ship. Currently, it means taking responsibility for your actions; don’t run from your mistakes.

 03 (Pronounced, “oh 3”):  Refers to the general term for a grunt or infantryman.  The MOS can be 0311, 0331, 0351, 0302 and so on.  Also referred to as “03 hump a lot”.

 If you want more Marine jargon, Wikepedia has a long list.

[layerslider id=”31″]

/by