August 1, 2026:
Cellphones are built for use in war zones, remote construction sites, or any similar situation. Military personnel depend on their cellphones as an emergency backup to their military comms, and to keep in touch with friends and family back home. Some of the current favorites are the OUKITEL G1 Rugged Smartphone at $164, the A3x + Reno 9 Pro Military-Grade Shock Resistance at $65, the FOSSIBOT F105 Rugged Smartphone at $161, the Ulefone Armor 21 at $314.32, and the OUKITEL G5 Rugged Android Smartphone at $132.
All of these use the Android OS and have sufficient RAM and storage for sustained operation. They have to be recharged regularly, but the American military has adapted to that, with most vehicles having charging ports and troops carrying extra batteries to keep their phones and other electronics going.
The military, especially the Americans, were early adopters of cellphones. They initially investigated the use of mobile communication about 40 years ago. The first militarized cellphones appeared in the mid-1980s. In the late 1990s, the military began modifying commercial cell phones to handle secure communications. The use of satellite phones became common in military operations during the 1990s.
South Korean electronics giant Samsung has long been a leading supplier of cell phone technology. For example, six years after releasing the Galaxy S9 Tactical Edition phone, Samsung followed up with the faster, larger Galaxy S20 Tactical. Samsung has been producing tactical ruggedized military versions of its phones since 2012. The S20 costs about 40 percent more than the S9 but offers longer battery life, a larger, sharper screen, more RAM and storage, and a faster processor. Many custom military Android apps are much more effective on the more powerful S20. Most military users are content with the S9, but the app developers often have some software that performs much better (or at all) with more speed and memory.
Since 2012, the American Army has been seeking out and purchasing cell phones rugged enough and with features suitable for military use in a combat zone. These CSP/Combat Smart Phones go by many other names, such as Tactical Edition, but all must be as flexible and up to date as their civilian counterparts. To that end, the Army sought CSP designs that are rugged and cheap, and that provide critical special features such as software-based encryption rather than custom hardware. Since smartphone hardware is rapidly evolving, CSPs should cost the Army less than $300 each and be built to be replaced every two years or less. This price is about what 2012 cell phones sold (wholesale, to dealers). There would be a similar, but slower, replacement schedule for the battlefield cell towers, routers, and other infrastructure. Not surprisingly, the army is allowing several different smartphones and supporting gear to be developed and tested. The military was spending more on CSPs because capabilities had been significantly enhanced. In 2012, Samsung's flagship phone was the S3. It was then the most popular cell phone, outselling the iPhone 5 and offering very competitive capabilities. For their militarized S3, Samsung added an additional layer of security they called Knox, and they made the Samsung CSPs the most popular.
Back in 2012, the Army noted that there was already a civilian market for a similar cell phone. This was the construction and remote facilities like oil fields, mines, lumbering market, plus the rather large number of people who hike, go camping, and climb mountains. There are over a dozen of these ruggedized cell phones out there, and that made it easy for the army to find the hardware. Your typical ruggedized cell phone is waterproof, shock-resistant from being dropped, easy to read in sunlight, and has long battery life. These models all use the Android OS/Operating System, the most widely used OS on the planet.
One problem the military has encountered is the cost of obtaining certain special hardware features. The most important of these is the ability to use mesh networks. This means CSPs automatically setting themselves up as nodes of a digital radio network. Mesh networks are discouraged for commercial cell phones because they offer no advantage to cell phone companies. But for the military, all their users are one customer who often operates in areas with no cell phone towers. Because of that, mesh makes a lot of sense. Fortunately, some commercial manufacturers began adding mesh capability to their Wi-Fi hardware, which is now standard on all phones. This came after noting that software that tweaked Wi-Fi to enable cell phones to form a mesh network was popular. So now the mesh networking hardware is available in many phones.
Testing ruggedized versions of commercial smartphones for combat use has been going on since 2009. There have also been efforts to establish standards that ensure these phones address crucial military needs. For example, in 2011, the NSA/National Security Agency created a version of the Android operating system for cell phones and tablets suitable for combat use. SE/Security Enhanced Android is based on a SELinux that the NSA began working on in the late 1990s. NSA has been active for decades in hardening PC operating systems. Since Android is based on Linux, NSA had a head start in creating SE Android.
SE Android was the last key element the American Army needed to move commercial smartphones and tablets onto the battlefield. The troops have been clamoring for a combat smartphone, and in 2011 the Army began field testing the Atrix smartphone and Galaxy tablet. Both were Android-based and designated as NWEUD/Net Warrior End-User Device by the military. The Army has since tested several more types of Android smartphone and tablet designs. Troops test this hardware in training, and SOCOM\Special Operations Command operators began using these phones in combat. SE Android provides the security against enemy eavesdropping, hacking, and so on that commercial cell phones and tablets cannot provide. SE Android worked pretty well, especially when worn on the forearm and usable with one hand.
The emergence of a large market for mass-produced, ruggedized, water- and drop-resistant consumer designs has generated significant interest among manufacturers in developing militarized models. Sales of several hundred thousand CSPs a year to one customer is an attractive piece of business. There is also the bonus of having an edge in the civilian market for “ruggedized” smartphones by being able to say that some of your ruggedized cell phone models were combat-proven.
Earlier attempts to create smartphone capabilities for combat troops produced a 2.3 kg wearable, networked computer with an eyepiece for the display and a handheld or arm-worn input device keyboard. This integrated radio, GPS, and 16 GB of storage for maps, pictures, or whatever. Troops found the system too heavy and not as easy to use as a smartphone or tablet. The Army found these custom systems far more expensive than a militarized smartphone. Soldiers and Marines knew that most smartphones could do the same job, and by 2010 the Army agreed, but it had to decide which commercial designs to use for combat testing. The older NWEUD prototypes underwent combat testing and failed. But the CSP prototypes received a much more enthusiastic response in troop tests.
Combat-experienced troops were eager to try this equipment out on the battlefield, especially if the new CSP systems were a bit more reliable than current radios. This reliability issue is something most civilians don’t appreciate. Since radios got their first wide-scale workout during the 1039-45 World War II, traditional radio equipment, despite decades of improvements, has always suffered from hardware reliability, atmospheric, and geographical problems. This rarely gets featured in movies, as it slows things down. But in the real world of combat, unreliable comms are a regular fact of life. Cell phone tech is not perfect, but it is a step up from traditional battlefield communications gear.
Over half a century of studies have discovered what an infantryman needs to be more effective. They need to know where they are, quickly. Having a poor idea of where you are has long been one of the main shortcomings of armored vehicles. Armored vehicle crews tend to be cut off from this while inside their vehicle, where they are even more easily disoriented. When the shooting starts, even the vehicle commander, instead of standing up with his head outside the turret, often ducks back inside to stay alive. Infantry aren't much better off. Although they can see their surroundings, they are often crouching behind something. When getting shot at, standing up to look around is not much of an option.
CSPs give Team Leaders and Squad Leaders, and eventually each infantryman, a smartphone and a touchscreen for the smartphone/tablet to control the thing. GPS puts the soldier's location on the map, and the soldier knows where he is. Earlier in Iraq, infantry officers and NCOs, equipped at first with map-based GPS receivers, then with smartphones, found the map/GPS combo a tremendous aid in getting around and getting the job done. CSP also provides a wireless networking capability, so troops not only saw where they were but could receive new maps and other information. Another goal is to use a vidcam to transmit images to headquarters, their immediate commander, or simply to the other men in their squad. Perhaps most importantly, the CSP gear provides the same capability as the 2003 Blue Force Tracker and shows Team Leaders and Squad Leaders where all the other men in their unit are. When fighting inside a building, this can be a lifesaver.
CSP-type capabilities were soon changing the way troops fight. Everyone can now move around more quickly, confidently, and effectively. This has already been demonstrated with the Stryker units equipped with CSP-type gear. Captured enemy gunmen often complained of how the Strykers came out of nowhere and skillfully maneuvered to surround and destroy their targets. This was often done at night, with no lights, using night vision. When you have infantry using CSPs to do the same thing on foot, you demoralize the enemy.
Troops in combat face unique challenges keeping smartphones operational. For one thing, there’s the problem of providing a reliable signal via the digital military radios. But that’s long been a problem with all forms of military wireless communications, and there are always new solutions that will work with a smartphone. Then there’s the need for encryption. Again, that’s another problem handled by SE Android. If the smartphone manufacturers and the NSA SE Android deliver, the troops will use it. They most certainly want it. Samsung took advantage of its market dominance to ship its CSPs with Knox, an additional layer of security approved by the NSA. There are CSPs from many other manufacturers, but Samsung hustled and maintained its market-share lead. Worldwide, Samsung has been overtaken by Chinese cell phone makers, who also make ruggedized editions. The Chinese CSPs are not really competitive with Western models, especially those from Samsung. Based on past experience, the Chinese CSPs will catch up and possibly surpass South Korean and other Western models.