PDA

View Full Version : What if: GPS and all Western satellites are successfully neutralised



Surreal McCoy
27 Nov 13,, 03:12
Right. This thread will expose my utter lack of understanding of the general principles here, but I'm going to plow ahead anyway.

Premise: Let's just say China (for example) is capable of disabling US satellites in a near future engagement. How they do it, I don't know. Maybe through hacking, maybe through flinging stuff at them. The point is, would the US/Nato/West be able to conduct effective operations without all the goodies they've become so dependent upon? Never mind civilians driving off a cliff because their Tom Tom went tits up, what about the military? Are they still drilled in the traditional, non-technological, methods of manoeuvre? If so, would they be able to coordinate sufficiently to perform their duties?

PS - I searched this section for a what if scenario like this and didn't see one, so if I've missed the bus kindly ignore the above :)

PPS - I broach this subject because I wonder, as we move into a new age with more and more unmanned weaponry, what would happen if all the drones suddenly didn't work? Are we still training enough people to fly? Same goes for every other aspect of conflict. Your considered responses are very much appreciated

:wors:

gf0012-aust
27 Nov 13,, 03:27
there are other guidance systems that can be deployed which are GPS independent.

... and the US has been working on alternatives to GPS ever since the Russians gave the Iraqis GPS jammers 12 years ago....

the west had precision guidance before we had GPS

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 13,, 05:00
Right. This thread will expose my utter lack of understanding of the general principles here, but I'm going to plow ahead anyway.I didn't have GPS and neither did the two Soviet armies who was going to steamroll me!

Monash
27 Nov 13,, 07:23
DARPA has funded development of a next generation minaturised laser/giro inertial navigation system which is apparently almost on par in terms of accuracy with GPS. Also you can still go 'old tech' for general navigation purposes and use LORAN style ground based navigation beacons - not nearly as accurate for targeting purposes but good enough to get you where you want to go. Finally as the song says "anything you can do I can do better" so if all else fails you can always take out (or use and abuse) their GPS systems and then we get to see who was paying the most attention during their OTC navigation classes - level the playing field so to speak.

gf0012-aust
27 Nov 13,, 07:27
DARPA has funded development of a next generation minaturised laser/giro inertial navigation system which is apparently almost on par in terms of accuracy with GPS. Also you can still go 'old tech' for general navigation purposes and use LORAN style ground based navigation beacons - not nearly as accurate for targeting purposes but good enough to get you where you want to go. Finally as the song says "anything you can do I can do better" so if all else fails you can always take out (or use and abuse) their GPS systems and then we get to see who was paying the most attention during their OTC navigation classes - level the playing field so to speak.

= TIMU or “timing & inertial measurement unit”

Doktor
27 Nov 13,, 08:32
Better question IMHO is what if someone manages to drop kazzillion of EMP devices on US/Nato HQs.

Since none of this is gonna happen...

Blademaster
27 Nov 13,, 16:48
I didn't have GPS and neither did the two Soviet armies who was going to steamroll me!

yes but the doctrines that came after the end of the cold war and was predicated on precision bombing and RMA in communications are now useless. Your armies today would have to go back and relearn all the lessons learned in the cold war and start engaging in very expensive restocking cold war technology armaments.

tuna
27 Nov 13,, 17:18
Technology isn't so much a crutch as it is a prothesis. What starts out as simply a help evolves quickly into a need, and it doesn't take long before the old ways are forgotten, if even available.

A great exapmle is the simple map. When I first joined a fighter squadron (Air Force) we had a room full of maps, that had to be cut together, updated manually and labeled. Then we got a giant printer and software to do all this the modern way. "Bah", says I, "I'm sticking with my razors and markers and rubber cement, because these will always work even if the power fails". Then they took away my map room, and I pray the network is up, and the power doesn't fail. The old way is no longer an option.

Mihais
27 Nov 13,, 18:44
Our armies will re-learn all we knew once in a month or two.Death hanging above is the best teacher.

It's been shown to be the case in all the great wars of the past.

desertswo
27 Nov 13,, 19:05
I've told the story before about having to re-educate my Quartermasters (USN term for enlisted navigation specialists) in the fine art of celestial navigation because my predecessor had allowed their skill set to deteriorate. Give me a sextant and chronometer and I'll get us home. I might even get a launch box that is finite enough to make TERCOM guidance in a Tomahawk viable.

JAD_333
27 Nov 13,, 19:12
Generally, transformation of everything to electronic, power requiring systems, seems to be leading us to a time when one flick of the switch will put us back into the horse and buggy era. It may be a fanciful idea not suitable to this thread.

In any case, browsing around on the net I came across a gov website dedicated to solely to GPS questions. It confirms what has been already said in the thread.

GPS.gov: Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.gps.gov/support/faq/#AFremarks)



Is it true the Air Force doesn't want to use GPS in the future because of its vulnerabilities?

The Air Force is fully committed to continuing its operation and use of GPS in the future. The ongoing GPS modernization program will enhance the jam resistance of the military GPS service, making it more robust. At the same time, the Department of Defense is making prudent investments in alternative positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) technologies to supplement GPS in times when satellite services are unavailable. This will ensure that future troops have continuous, uninterrupted access to PNT under the most challenging conditions.

arrowReturn to top of page

JAD_333
27 Nov 13,, 19:17
I've told the story before about having to re-educate my Quartermasters (USN term for enlisted navigation specialists) in the fine art of celestial navigation because my predecessor had allowed their skill set to deteriorate. Give me a sextant and chronometer and I'll get us home. I might even get a launch box that is finite enough to make TERCOM guidance in a Tomahawk viable.

Capt Aubrey would agree with you, but isn't a sextant unusable when the sky is heavily overcast?

desertswo
27 Nov 13,, 19:57
Capt Aubrey would agree with you, but isn't a sextant unusable when the sky is heavily overcast?

Yeah, so you do some DRing for a few days if you have to. Not unheard of in any era. Get me horizon at dawn or twilight and at least three stars (two in a pinch) and I'll figure out where we are within 50 miles or so. Get me five or more and I'll get it down to a gnat's ass.

Surreal McCoy
27 Nov 13,, 23:16
Yeah, so you do some DRing for a few days if you have to. Not unheard of in any era. Get me horizon at dawn or twilight and at least three stars (two in a pinch) and I'll figure out where we are within 50 miles or so. Get me five or more and I'll get it down to a gnat's ass.

This was the point of my 'what if' scenario. Even though I realise it's extremely far-fetched, I still wonder about whether our servicemen and women are taught, or even made familiar with, how to do things manually in case all the electronic wizardry somehow craps its pants at the moment of truth. It seems you might be the exception to the rule?

desertswo
27 Nov 13,, 23:53
This was the point of my 'what if' scenario. Even though I realise it's extremely far-fetched, I still wonder about whether our servicemen and women are taught, or even made familiar with, how to do things manually in case all the electronic wizardry somehow craps its pants at the moment of truth. It seems you might be the exception to the rule?

No, I'm not the exception. At least I wasn't. I just relieved a guy who wasn't doing his job. It wasn't the only problem I found. The engineering department looked pretty, but they were adrift as well. Undertrained and not nearly as smart as a couple of their junior officers thought they were. I had just come from a two year tour as an engineering inspector for CINCPACFLT. I walked into the fire room and three hours later walked back out after writing 300 major discrepancies, any one of which would have welded them to the pier had I been in my former job. I handed the Chief Engineer the list and said, "Have a nice day." Clearly there was a new sheriff in town. They were good people though. They just hadn't been properly led or exposed to the sort of attention to detail that keeps people and equipment safe. The whole ship was like that. I did the same thing in the engine room the next day. Then I sat down with he and his senior enlisted guys and worked out a program to attack it all. Three weeks was all it took; and then maintaining that same level of attention to detail. They were fine after that. So was Weapons, and Ops, and everyone else I focused on. The key is that you don't turn into a raving asshole. You show them what's wrong and why, and how to get it right. I was able to do that because other people, both officer and enlisted had done it for me. That's how it works. It's never a one man show, and the second you start believing that is the second shit starts to go wrong.

Officer of Engineers
28 Nov 13,, 01:11
yes but the doctrines that came after the end of the cold war and was predicated on precision bombing and RMA in communications are now useless. Your armies today would have to go back and relearn all the lessons learned in the cold war and start engaging in very expensive restocking cold war technology armaments.You do what armies have done for 1000s of years. You rely on local knowledge. Those units who got locals guiding them were a hell of a lot faster than those relying on map and compass back in days of old ... and I suspect faster than GPS.

Albany Rifles
28 Nov 13,, 01:15
We still teach, and use map and compass and land navigation.

gf0012-aust
28 Nov 13,, 01:34
yes but the doctrines that came after the end of the cold war and was predicated on precision bombing and RMA in communications are now useless. Your armies today would have to go back and relearn all the lessons learned in the cold war and start engaging in very expensive restocking cold war technology armaments.

Not necessarily so.

Militaries adapt - eg Galula, Petraeus, Nagle, McMaster, Sepp, Kilkullen etc adapted and leaned from prev soldiers in prev wars such as Lawrence, Templar, Larteguy

In fact if you read Kaplans "The Insurgents" he gives an example of how precision weapons delivery was able to be made for efficient in small wars as well as set piece (cold war) models. Donkey to shooter times of less than 19mins were achieved - 5 years earlier they were 3hrs - today they're shorter again.

Tech doesn't become redundant - it can be used in different ways, so nothing gets abandoned.

Stitch
28 Nov 13,, 02:02
You do what armies have done for 1000s of years. You rely on local knowledge. Those units who got locals guiding them were a hell of a lot faster than those relying on map and compass back in days of old ... and I suspect faster than GPS.

Is that why the Green Berets used Montagnard scouts in Vietnam?

desertswo
28 Nov 13,, 02:05
Is that why the Green Berets used Montagnard scouts in Vietnam?

The function of the Green Berets is not to fight an insurgency. They are there to train indigenous forces to fight an insurgency. So I guess one might as easily say that the Montagnards were using them as much as the other way around.

gf0012-aust
28 Nov 13,, 02:05
Is that why the Green Berets used Montagnard scouts in Vietnam?

The AATTV used them because they loathed the VC with a passion.

Look up CAPT Barry Petersen. He's regarded as the model for Col Kurtz in Apocalypse Now

basic info:

Australian Army Training Team Vietnam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army_Training_Team_Vietnam)

Blademaster
28 Nov 13,, 07:20
We still teach, and use map and compass and land navigation.

But how often do you practice them in the field exercises?

gf0012-aust
28 Nov 13,, 07:27
yes but the doctrines that came after the end of the cold war and was predicated on precision bombing and RMA in communications are now useless. Your armies today would have to go back and relearn all the lessons learned in the cold war and start engaging in very expensive restocking cold war technology armaments.

can't speak for the US, but for us its still core training.

craft is about core skills, basic skills, and being able to fight without your tech advances.

Its pretty apparent that red team will do the same as you, ie try to render you blind, deaf and dumb so that you're fighting in an information vacuum - so you train to be able to still fight on your terms without the tech if need be.

Officer of Engineers
28 Nov 13,, 13:06
But how often do you practice them in the field exercises?Engineers still use maps. It's a bitch trying to carry a 36 inch screen.

Doktor
28 Nov 13,, 13:19
Engineers still use maps. It's a bitch trying to carry a 36 inch screen.

What will US Corps of Engineers carry?
Pentagon agency creating digital map of the world (http://www.usatoday.com/story/nation/2013/10/25/nga-digital-map-world-updated/3189781/)

Mihais
28 Nov 13,, 13:28
Something based on graphene. Samsung patents graphene networks for touch screens - Graphene Tracker (http://www.graphenetracker.com/samsung-patents-graphene-networks-for-touch-screens/)

But it will still be foldable,like a paper map.The best of both worlds.

payeng
28 Nov 13,, 14:24
I wonder what happen if some organisation successfully disable the cyber space backbone of a nation for a single month both satellite link and physical cables, monetary system depends too much on cyber technology. no connectivity means people will run out of money very soon.

Mihais
28 Nov 13,, 14:29
I wonder what happen if some organisation successfully disable the cyber space backbone of a nation for a single month both satellite link and physical cables, monetary system depends too much on cyber technology. no connectivity means people will run out of money very soon.

Nothing special or new.Emergency state or martial law.Food,water and medicine distributed on a need to have basis.You object too much or you think you have the right to loot,you die.
But that's an unlikely scenario.The networks and databases aren't as vulnerable as they seem.

desertswo
28 Nov 13,, 15:40
You know, there is an OPLAN or CONPLAN on the shelf in the Pentagon for every eventuality. "Fidel dies and Cuba folds like a cheap camera?" There's a plan for that. They are written by the geographic or functional commanders, reviewed by the Joint Staff and the services, and approved by SECDEF. We take them out every two years to review and update them. For example, I read the version of the OPLAN for Iraq twice in three years. As you all know, it didn't go as planned, but that's why we have branches and sequels. The point of all this is that there are bright young minds who are paid to think of all of these horrible but nonetheless interesting scenarios and then write a plan for dealing with it. We even war game them in exercises like "Top Off" and "Eligible Receiver" with a different set of circumstances every year. You thought 9/11 was bad? Just think how bad it would have been had we not run that one past the supported command, the services, the FBI, etc., only a year or two before. Not the same scenario, but a mass terrorist attack on the homeland nonetheless, only in multiple cities. No response is perfect, and that certainly wasn't but it could have been a lot worse. We don't leave a whole lot to chance.

Officer of Engineers
28 Nov 13,, 15:50
I wonder what happen if some organisation successfully disable the cyber space backbone of a nation for a single month both satellite link and physical cables, monetary system depends too much on cyber technology. no connectivity means people will run out of money very soon.Happened twice already. Two organization hit us and hit us bad.

Ice Storm 98 by Mother Nature
Black Out 2003 by Bad Luck

desertswo
28 Nov 13,, 16:51
Happened twice already. Two organization hit us and hit us bad.

Ice Storm 98 by Mother Nature
Black Out 2003 by Bad Luck

The thing about the latter event is that the system actually worked the way it's supposed to. The grid did emergency load shedding to save itself to fight another day. Again, not a perfect system, but the fact that it all works together at all never ceases to amaze me.

Doktor
28 Nov 13,, 17:13
The thing about the latter event is that the system actually worked the way it's supposed to. The grid did emergency load shedding to save itself to fight another day. Again, not a perfect system, but the fact that it all works together at all never ceases to amaze me.

That's me whenever on a train or in subway. So many humans in the process...

gf0012-aust
28 Nov 13,, 18:33
You know, there is an OPLAN or CONPLAN on the shelf in the Pentagon for every eventuality. "Fidel dies and Cuba folds like a cheap camera?" There's a plan for that. They are written by the geographic or functional commanders, reviewed by the Joint Staff and the services, and approved by SECDEF. We take them out every two years to review and update them. For example, I read the version of the OPLAN for Iraq twice in three years. As you all know, it didn't go as planned, but that's why we have branches and sequels. The point of all this is that there are bright young minds who are paid to think of all of these horrible but nonetheless interesting scenarios and then write a plan for dealing with it. We even war game them in exercises like "Top Off" and "Eligible Receiver" with a different set of circumstances every year. You thought 9/11 was bad? Just think how bad it would have been had we not run that one past the supported command, the services, the FBI, etc., only a year or two before. Not the same scenario, but a mass terrorist attack on the homeland nonetheless, only in multiple cities. No response is perfect, and that certainly wasn't but it could have been a lot worse. We don't leave a whole lot to chance.

australia has a similar process in place - referred to (prev} as the combat capability scenarios

if the PM gets woken up at 2am because NZ has invaded Malaysia or "Kaznia" has decided to hold all westerners hostage in Fiji, the relevant CCS is trotted out as a baseline option. It's then modified on the fly to suit the evolving situation.

Its designed to deal with the "Oh $h!t what do we do next" planning vacuums that happen if you're not switched on

zraver
29 Nov 13,, 05:19
yes but the doctrines that came after the end of the cold war and was predicated on precision bombing and RMA in communications are now useless. Your armies today would have to go back and relearn all the lessons learned in the cold war and start engaging in very expensive restocking cold war technology armaments.

The West's sat-net is just one part of RMA. Locally, even at the operational level it wont necessarily be a crippling loss. Advances in other areas like FLIR, Radar, digitized battle management/IFF, etc still work better than anything anyone else has. Plus our commanders have real world experience in using all these systems in an integrated way.

Finally, the main loss of capability will be remote sensing and real time communications between some theater assets and the theater commander and then back to CONUS and vice versa. No more BHO watching OBL get double tapped and seeing whats more than 400ish miles away starts to be a problem.

However, something to be considered- if the US lost its constellation of early warning sats.......

JAD_333
29 Nov 13,, 06:29
You know, there is an OPLAN or CONPLAN on the shelf in the Pentagon for every eventuality. "Fidel dies and Cuba folds like a cheap camera?" There's a plan for that. They are written by the geographic or functional commanders, reviewed by the Joint Staff and the services, and approved by SECDEF. We take them out every two years to review and update them. For example, I read the version of the OPLAN for Iraq twice in three years. As you all know, it didn't go as planned, but that's why we have branches and sequels. The point of all this is that there are bright young minds who are paid to think of all of these horrible but nonetheless interesting scenarios and then write a plan for dealing with it. We even war game them in exercises like "Top Off" and "Eligible Receiver" with a different set of circumstances every year. You thought 9/11 was bad? Just think how bad it would have been had we not run that one past the supported command, the services, the FBI, etc., only a year or two before. Not the same scenario, but a mass terrorist attack on the homeland nonetheless, only in multiple cities. No response is perfect, and that certainly wasn't but it could have been a lot worse. We don't leave a whole lot to chance.


Every so often a tabloid will come out with a breathless article about--OMG--the US has a plan to invade Lichtenstein. Little to do people know we have a plan for invading-repelling every country in the world and what to do when we run out of paper clips.

Blademaster
29 Nov 13,, 15:16
The West's sat-net is just one part of RMA. Locally, even at the operational level it wont necessarily be a crippling loss. Advances in other areas like FLIR, Radar, digitized battle management/IFF, etc still work better than anything anyone else has. Plus our commanders have real world experience in using all these systems in an integrated way.

Finally, the main loss of capability will be remote sensing and real time communications between some theater assets and the theater commander and then back to CONUS and vice versa. No more BHO watching OBL get double tapped and seeing whats more than 400ish miles away starts to be a problem.

However, something to be considered- if the US lost its constellation of early warning sats.......

All that you talked about is contingent on one thing - availability of steady streaming power. What happens if batteries run out and the power systems are taken out? No recharging capability.

Albany Rifles
29 Nov 13,, 15:19
Every so often a tabloid will come out with a breathless article about--OMG--the US has a plan to invade Lichtenstein.

Those bastids in Lichtenstein need their asses kicked and taught a lesson!

desertswo
29 Nov 13,, 15:49
Those bastids in Lichtenstein need their asses kicked and taught a lesson!

Yeah, it's like people still get all hysterical about the fact that we had a pre-WWII war plan to take on Great Britain, when we also had Plan Orange to take on Japan, and heaven forbid we forget Plan Green to whack Mexico and finish the job we started in 1847. It was a very different world back then, and the term "peer competitor" covered more than a few bases.

Meanwhile, there is presently one for what happens if Mexico implodes and foments a mass migration/humanitarian disaster. It used to involve shooting and all like that. Today I think we call it the Dream Act and we give free college tuition to such "refugees."

Doktor
29 Nov 13,, 16:07
Every so often a tabloid will come out with a breathless article about--OMG--the US has a plan to invade Lichtenstein. Little to do people know we have a plan for invading-repelling every country in the world and what to do when we run out of paper clips.

But Canada and Macedonia :)

desertswo
29 Nov 13,, 16:30
But Canada and Macedonia :)

Yeah, them too, and no, I'm not joking. Obviously most of these things will ever come to pass, but we never expected to be bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade either, and yet, we did. There's a plan for everything. Some of course are more defined than others and include a TOE. The one for taking on the Soviets across the Fulda Gap for instance. Iraq was also such a plan. Korea. You can probably look at a globe and guess the ones that would have a TOE. They are pretty obvious. The one that I always hated reading was the SIOP. It's real doomsday sh1t and pretty dreary reading. One generally doesn't sleep well after a day of slogging through that one.

FJV
29 Nov 13,, 18:57
If I look at how GPS works, then you could make a local GPS with the right kind of equipment on UAV's.

The UAV's would be a target, but it would save a lot of time looking for the enemy.

Large scale anti GPS jamming would be more difficult to deal with, if an enemy does this right.

desertswo
29 Nov 13,, 19:28
If I look at how GPS works, then you could make a local GPS with the right kind of equipment on UAV's.

The UAV's would be a target, but it would save a lot of time looking for the enemy.

Large scale anti GPS jamming would be more difficult to deal with, if an enemy does this right.

"Lucy, you have some 'splainin' to do!"

kato
29 Nov 13,, 20:40
Let's just say China (for example) is capable of disabling US satellites in a near future engagement.
GPS wouldn't be the problem in this scenario. Having SATCOM taken out could become a problem.


Never mind civilians driving off a cliff because their Tom Tom went tits up
The latest Tom Toms, much like most relatively current civilian geolocation receivers, will actually make do with GLONASS only. ;)

FJV
29 Nov 13,, 21:03
"Lucy, you have some 'splainin' to do!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjld-edVj8

At about 2:30 in the video, think smaller spheres, because UAV's aren't as high up as sattellites. (the video is a bit meh)

Drawback is you cover a smaller area with UAV's, but you only really need to cover the conflict area instead of the entire world, so that reduces the demand on such a system.

Mihais
29 Nov 13,, 21:23
Local GPS is like semiauto AK :)

A while back I heard of trying to replace satellites with blimps for some local comms and positioning systems.Don't know what came of the project.

desertswo
29 Nov 13,, 22:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLjld-edVj8

At about 2:30 in the video, think smaller spheres, because UAV's aren't as high up as sattellites. (the video is a bit meh)

Drawback is you cover a smaller area with UAV's, but you only really need to cover the conflict area instead of the entire world, so that reduces the demand on such a system.

OK, here's why I think such a system is not quite all that and a bag of chips: How do the UAVs know where they are? I mean, they may well be able to give you a fix, but relative to what? See my point? The UAVs may well tell you where you are relative to them, but where are they relative to the Earth? Moreover, the thing about real satellites is that their orbits are known, consistent, and most importantly constant. In that respect, they replicate for all intents and purposes, any real star that you will find in the Nautical Almanac and your Rude Starfinder.

The difference between a GPS fix and one attained by celestial navigation is that the GPS fix is really just like a radar fix on an observable landmark. You know that landmark is there; now you just need to know how far you are from it, so you paint it with your radar. If you are really sexy, you zap it with your fire control radar. Do that with four or more such landmarks and you can get a pretty good fix; ditto with satellites. With a celestial fix, and I'm simplifying things here, you are basically using your Dead Reckoning position, which is purely an estimation based on your expected course and speed over ground, to include set and drift caused by current, as a starting point, and then a trigonometric function of the difference between the height computed of a given star for that time of day and your estimated position on the surface of the Earth, and the actual height observed above the horizon (your sextant shot) of the same star. In other words, you are comparing the position of a star above the horizon taken from the Nautical Almanac for 05:32 AM on August 29th for the general vicinity of the Canary Islands, to your actual sighting of that same star, like Betelgeuse or Aldebaran at the same time and estimated place. The time is important. That chronometer better be gnat's ass accurate or else you will end up in East Jesus. If the height observed is greater, you are closer to your DR position. If the height computed is greater, you are farther away from your DR.

Your fix not being particularly near your DR is not a bad thing. It just means you have to re-calibrate your estimated course, speed, and the set and drift associated with the ocean currents in the area. Once you have a fix, you correct your course and speed if necessary, and start a new track. You get a good fix with five or six observable stars at either twilight or just before dawn when you have a really sharp horizon, you can get a pretty accurate picture of where you are in the greater scheme of things.

Now, I am assuming that these UAVs might be set up to orbit one or more known landmarks, like a mountain peak, the Eiffel Tower, Old Faithful Geyser, or whatever, so long as it is fixed in space and is not likely to change. If they can maintain their position in an orbit around that known physical landmark, then they might be able to give you their position relative to that landmark, and then your position from the UAV. I threw this graphic below together as an example of how I think it could work. One UAV orbiting Gibraltar, one orbiting the Eiffel Tower, one orbiting Mt. Vesuvius, one orbiting the Great Pyramid at Giza and one orbiting the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. I have no clue what altitude they'd have to be operating at in order to maintain UHF LOS or whatever, but probably something on the order of angels 70 to 100 I would think. Should be doable regardless as one doesn't have to worry about keeping the SPAM in the can alive. In any event, as I said, the UAV would have to maintain its position relative to that landmark, and then report both its position in terms of both range and bearing, from that landmark, and your straight line distance from the UAV. That just might work.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f43/mme0528/MedUAVNAV_zps9e547fcf.jpg

cataphract
30 Nov 13,, 03:54
OK, here's why I think such a system is not quite all that and a bag of chips: How do the UAVs know where they are? I mean, they may well be able to give you a fix, but relative to what? See my point? The UAVs may well tell you where you are relative to them, but where are they relative to the Earth? Moreover, the thing about real satellites is that their orbits are known, consistent, and most importantly constant. In that respect, they replicate for all intents and purposes, any real star that you will find in the Nautical Almanac and your Rude Starfinder.

The difference between a GPS fix and one attained by celestial navigation is that the GPS fix is really just like a radar fix on an observable landmark. You know that landmark is there; now you just need to know how far you are from it, so you paint it with your radar. If you are really sexy, you zap it with your fire control radar. Do that with four or more such landmarks and you can get a pretty good fix; ditto with satellites. With a celestial fix, and I'm simplifying things here, you are basically using your Dead Reckoning position, which is purely an estimation based on your expected course and speed over ground, to include set and drift caused by current, as a starting point, and then a trigonometric function of the difference between the height computed of a given star for that time of day and your estimated position on the surface of the Earth, and the actual height observed above the horizon (your sextant shot) of the same star. In other words, you are comparing the position of a star above the horizon taken from the Nautical Almanac for 05:32 AM on August 29th for the general vicinity of the Canary Islands, to your actual sighting of that same star, like Betelgeuse or Aldebaran at the same time and estimated place. The time is important. That chronometer better be gnat's ass accurate or else you will end up in East Jesus. If the height observed is greater, you are closer to your DR position. If the height computed is greater, you are farther away from your DR.

Your fix not being particularly near your DR is not a bad thing. It just means you have to re-calibrate your estimated course, speed, and the set and drift associated with the ocean currents in the area. Once you have a fix, you correct your course and speed if necessary, and start a new track. You get a good fix with five or six observable stars at either twilight or just before dawn when you have a really sharp horizon, you can get a pretty accurate picture of where you are in the greater scheme of things.

Now, I am assuming that these UAVs might be set up to orbit one or more known landmarks, like a mountain peak, the Eiffel Tower, Old Faithful Geyser, or whatever, so long as it is fixed in space and is not likely to change. If they can maintain their position in an orbit around that known physical landmark, then they might be able to give you their position relative to that landmark, and then your position from the UAV. I threw this graphic below together as an example of how I think it could work. One UAV orbiting Gibraltar, one orbiting the Eiffel Tower, one orbiting Mt. Vesuvius, one orbiting the Great Pyramid at Giza and one orbiting the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. I have no clue what altitude they'd have to be operating at in order to maintain UHF LOS or whatever, but probably something on the order of angels 70 to 100 I would think. Should be doable regardless as one doesn't have to worry about keeping the SPAM in the can alive. In any event, as I said, the UAV would have to maintain its position relative to that landmark, and then report both its position in terms of both range and bearing, from that landmark, and your straight line distance from the UAV. That just might work.
[/IMG]

I haven't watched FJV's video, but your explanation makes a lot of sense. But I think having a UAV orbiting a landmark defeats the purpose in this scenario. A fixed orbit around a known location means that the enemy knows where to look for your UAV, just like he did with your satellite.

Blademaster
30 Nov 13,, 04:09
I thought that having three locations was enough to fix your location. Why the extra need for two or three more locations?

Blademaster
30 Nov 13,, 04:09
I haven't watched FJV's video, but your explanation makes a lot of sense. But I think having a UAV orbiting a landmark defeats the purpose in this scenario. A fixed orbit around a known location means that the enemy knows where to look for your UAV, just like he did with your satellite.

Yes but it is easier to replace a lost UAV than a lost satellite and is vastly cheaper and easier to do.

desertswo
30 Nov 13,, 14:09
I haven't watched FJV's video, but your explanation makes a lot of sense. But I think having a UAV orbiting a landmark defeats the purpose in this scenario. A fixed orbit around a known location means that the enemy knows where to look for your UAV, just like he did with your satellite.

One more time; how does the drone know where it is? If there is no satellite constellation for it to guide off of, then your next options are a celestial fix, which is doable, but not generally accurate enough for something as sophisticated as a launch box for a Tomahawk strike, or physical landmarks. Those would be the most accurate for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that they are close relatively speaking, and can be seen by radar in all weathers. Stars cannot; a point that others have made. Meanwhile, Mt. Vesuvius will be there a long, long time, yes?

As Blademaster has indicated, UAVs are cheap. Keep throwing them up there until you eliminate whatever is a threat to them. Then you eliminate whatever sent the threat up there in the first place.

desertswo
30 Nov 13,, 14:12
I thought that having three locations was enough to fix your location. Why the extra need for two or three more locations?

More is better. A typical morning's star sighting will include five to six good observable bodies. The more you can refine your fix, the more accurate it will be. We also shoot multiple land marks when doing visual or radar navigation while entering or leaving port. I don't believe I've ever shot less than five. You play fast and loose with that sort of stuff and go aground, some really mean old men will take away your birthday.

gf0012-aust
30 Nov 13,, 23:00
But I think having a UAV orbiting a landmark defeats the purpose in this scenario. A fixed orbit around a known location means that the enemy knows where to look for your UAV, just like he did with your satellite.


without going into detail....

the landmark is a point in time

the landmark can also be virtual - it can be a random geolocation that makes no sense to a human or an analyst but is a waypoint or marker as big as the eifel tower as far as the UAS control system is concerned

UAS behaviour is entirely dependent on its mission set

FJV
30 Nov 13,, 23:45
As long as the UAV can receive 3 ground stations, the position of the UAV can be triangulated from the ground stations. (it can fly anywhere in such an area)

You could also triangulate directly from the ground stations, but the UAV's would extend the range.

gf0012-aust
30 Nov 13,, 23:49
There's an assumption going on in here that UAS are all using satellites to do their shopping - that's not necessarily so.

desertswo
01 Dec 13,, 01:52
There's an assumption going on in here that UAS are all using satellites to do their shopping - that's not necessarily so.

No, it's not. However, that's as far as I'm going with that one.

gf0012-aust
01 Dec 13,, 01:57
No, it's not. However, that's as far as I'm going with that one.

Not referring to you making an assumption...

desertswo
01 Dec 13,, 02:03
Not referring to you making an assumption...

Oh, I know. That wasn't my point. It's just that I know a whole lot more about this stuff than most, as I was on the ground floor of drone technology and its applications in C4ISR. So while I'll offer observations on this or that, I won't go into too many grim details. Like elaborating on your post. Bad juju for all concerned.

gf0012-aust
01 Dec 13,, 02:17
Oh, I know. That wasn't my point. It's just that I know a whole lot more about this stuff than most, as I was on the ground floor of drone technology and its applications in C4ISR. So while I'll offer observations on this or that, I won't go into too many grim details. Like elaborating on your post. Bad juju for all concerned.

ack

ditto this end on C4ISR

S2
04 Dec 13,, 05:05
"But how often do you practice them [land nav] in the field exercises?"

I'll have a partial answer in a few weeks. Curious to see how a co-employee, newly-commissioned 2Lt infantry officer, reviews his OBC (or whatever they call it now) experience. Particularly land nav and how it's practically integrated. It's only partial as that's institutional training. What goes on at the troop level is more telling. I know this-I have utter disdain for any soldier above the rank of PFC and any officer regardless of rank who can't land navigate.

It would be a long, slow slide and enough to stretch the wildest imagination must occur before armies and nations are brought to their knees because of technological over-reliance. You are correct, however, that older technologies might regain some relevance. PADS (Position Azimuth Determination System) might, for instance, make a re-emergence. A cool, HUMVEE mounted gyro-nav system that had to periodically re-orient over a known point and a limited range (about twenty miles max from the orienting station). Still, a quantum leap forward for artillery survey. New and utterly revolutionary in 1985.

Outmoded by 1991.

JAD_333
04 Dec 13,, 06:46
[B]

It would be a long, slow slide and enough to stretch the wildest imagination must occur before armies and nations are brought to their knees because of technological over-reliance. You are correct, however, that older technologies might regain some relevance.


I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned. I see technology replacing human problem solving to the extent that cutting the power could make us virtually helpless. But what I want to understand is the term over-reliance. At what point does it become 'over' versus simply 'reliant"?

desertswo
04 Dec 13,, 07:54
I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned. I see technology replacing human problem solving to the extent that cutting the power could make us virtually helpless. But what I want to understand is the term over-reliance. At what point does it become 'over' versus simply 'reliant"?

Frankly, I'm more concerned with what personal electronics are doing to society, period. The other day I was sitting in the car waiting for my daughter to get done with her shift at a local boutique and I was watching two 20-somethings walking out of another store, looking intently at their iPhones or whatever, and they literally stepped in front of a moving car without looking. Had the guy not stood on his brakes he'd have hit them . . . and they would have deserved it. I used to think kids on bikes were an issue, but the things I see regularly these days are well beyond the pale of common sense. When I used to teach my masters course "on ground" I'd enter the back of the lecture hall, all heads would be looking down at their widgets whatever they may be, and never once would they look up at me for the next 90 minutes. WTF is that? If I could find the person that thought up the cell phone, I'd cut his nuts off and stuff them up his nose. I won't have one. I have On Star in the car and that's as connected, beyond exchanges like this, as I want to be.

Doktor
04 Dec 13,, 08:39
One more time; how does the drone know where it is?

Captain,

Wouldn't the UAV take off from a known location? There is your starting point.

Assuming you can get the speed and the direction right from there you would always know where your bird is.

Doktor
04 Dec 13,, 08:42
I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned. I see technology replacing human problem solving to the extent that cutting the power could make us virtually helpless. But what I want to understand is the term over-reliance. At what point does it become 'over' versus simply 'reliant"?

IMV it would be the point where without the tech you can't get the job done in reasonable time.

JAD_333
04 Dec 13,, 09:01
Frankly, I'm more concerned with what personal electronics are doing to society, period. The other day I was sitting in the car waiting for my daughter to get done with her shift at a local boutique and I was watching two 20-somethings walking out of another store, looking intently at their iPhones or whatever, and they literally stepped in front of a moving car without looking. Had the guy not stood on his brakes he'd have hit them . . . and they would have deserved it. I used to think kids on bikes were an issue, but the things I see regularly these days are well beyond the pale of common sense. When I used to teach my masters course "on ground" I'd enter the back of the lecture hall, all heads would be looking down at their widgets whatever they may be, and never once would they look up at me for the next 90 minutes. WTF is that? If I could find the person that thought up the cell phone, I'd cut his nuts off and stuff them up his nose. I won't have one. I have On Star in the car and that's as connected, beyond exchanges like this, as I want to be.

I'm a big cell phone fan, especially since the smart phone came out. Mainly I use it to make business calls and stay in touch with the family. But having immediate access to a camera, GPS, weather reports, messenger, internet browser, and being able to check the market and make trades all from one little box can't be beaten for efficiency and convenience. I go back to the original Motorola brick. I think it cost around $2k at the time, and you had to stand by a window to get reception.

I understand how you feel about cells. Being old school I would never sit around in company pecking away at one like so many young people do these days. It seems impolite to me. But kids do it without batting an eyelash. One positive; it's made my son and daughter better spellers.

lemontree
04 Dec 13,, 09:11
Premise: Let's just say China (for example) is capable of disabling US satellites in a near future engagement..... The point is, would the US/Nato/West be able to conduct effective operations without all the goodies they've become so dependent upon? Never mind civilians driving off a cliff because their Tom Tom went tits up, what about the military? Are they still drilled in the traditional, non-technological, methods of manoeuvre? If so, would they be able to coordinate sufficiently to perform their duties?

Sorry, I saw this thread a bit late.
If all GPS systems are down, then the military can still so it's job.
Basic army training still teaches map reading and use of a magnetic compass.

But without real time info, we would be back to the tactical and strategic skills of the WW2 Generals, though.


PPS - I broach this subject because I wonder, as we move into a new age with more and more unmanned weaponry, what would happen if all the drones suddenly didn't work? Are we still training enough people to fly? Same goes for every other aspect of conflict. Your considered responses are very much appreciated
I'm sure you have enough of pilots, even the drone pilot is a real pilot, except that he/she cannot order a pizza while taking out a target. They would have to fly through the gauntlet of lead.:rolleyes:

JAD_333
04 Dec 13,, 09:17
IMV it would be the point where without the tech you can't get the job done in reasonable time.

If no one had access to the tech, all things being equal, a reasonable time would be whatever time it takes people to the job the old way.

Doktor
04 Dec 13,, 09:29
If no one had access to the tech, all things being equal, a reasonable time would be whatever time it takes people to the job the old way.

Reasonable time in wartime would be whoever can get the things done first, I'd guess.

Albany Rifles
04 Dec 13,, 14:15
But how often do you practice them in the field exercises?

Regularly

Albany Rifles
04 Dec 13,, 14:26
"But how often do you practice them [land nav] in the field exercises?"

I'll have a partial answer in a few weeks. Curious to see how a co-employee, newly-commissioned 2Lt infantry officer, reviews his OBC (or whatever they call it now) experience. Particularly land nav and how it's practically integrated. It's only partial as that's institutional training. What goes on at the troop level is more telling. I know this-I have utter disdain for any soldier above the rank of PFC and any officer regardless of rank who can't land navigate.

It would be a long, slow slide and enough to stretch the wildest imagination must occur before armies and nations are brought to their knees because of technological over-reliance. You are correct, however, that older technologies might regain some relevance. PADS (Position Azimuth Determination System) might, for instance, make a re-emergence. A cool, HUMVEE mounted gyro-nav system that had to periodically re-orient over a known point and a limited range (about twenty miles max from the orienting station). Still, a quantum leap forward for artillery survey. New and utterly revolutionary in 1985.

Outmoded by 1991.

I just spent a great evening last weekend with 2 of my former Scouts who are recent graduates of Infantry Officer Basic Course and Field Artillery Officer Basic Course.

Both stated they used map and compass extensively. Don't know what it is called at Sill but the Yankee Road Land Navigation Course at FT Benning is still the scourge of second lieutenants.

They do train with GPS later in the courses but only after they have mastered map & compass. And the land navigation with map & compass is still tested annually for all soldiers regardless of MOS....its a requirement for promotion to NCO.

desertswo
04 Dec 13,, 15:38
I just spent a great evening last weekend with 2 of my former Scouts who are recent graduates of Infantry Officer Basic Course and Field Artillery Officer Basic Course.

Both stated they used map and compass extensively. Don't know what it is called at Sill but the Yankee Road Land Navigation Course at FT Benning is still the scourge of second lieutenants.

They do train with GPS later in the courses but only after they have mastered map & compass. And the land navigation with map & compass is still tested annually for all soldiers regardless of MOS....its a requirement for promotion to NCO.

This is somewhat analogous to how we teach fire fighting in the live fire exercises at the school I used to own. The people, whether officer or enlisted as they are all in the same course, are taught that AFFF and PKP will knock a fire down in no time, and they will. However, they are never allowed to use those things. We teach them how to put a Class Bravo (petroleum based) fire out with water alone. It's hard to do, but doable nonetheless, and it instills confidence, so that they know when they have ALL the tools at their disposal with the real thing, they can get in and knock the thing down with little trouble.

FJV
04 Dec 13,, 21:39
One more time; how does the drone know where it is?

Thanks for reminding me why I refrain from posting on technical issues.

Did you ever wonder how a sattelite knows where it is after correcting it's orbit (for instance to avoid space debris)?

One way it could be done is with triangulation. Let's say you have 3 sattelites lying on the floor in exact known locations an a GPS reciever in space.
You can triangulate the position of the GPS reciever in space.

Replace the word sattelite with ground based transmitter and GPS reciever with sattelite and you can figure out a possible method of how a sattelite knows it's position in space.

Replace the word sattelite with ground based transmitter and GPS reciever with UAV and you can figure out a possible method of how an UAV knows it's position.
As long as an UAV can recieve distance measurement from 3 ground based transmitters in friendly territory it can be anywhere and know it's position. Or 2 ground based transmitters and another UAV, or 1 ground based transmitter and 2 other UAV's, or 1 sattelite and 2 other UAV's for that matter.

The area the UAV can occupy is limited by the area covered by the range it can receive the ground based transmitters. The higher the UAV flies the larger this range theoretically becomes. (line of "sight" frtom UAV to transmitter). Also the higher the UAV flies the larger the range where the UAV provides GPS triangulation. (line of "sight" from GPS receiver to UAV)

As for how long such a system needs to be operational depends on the type of war, remember that the majority of Saddams air defence system was basically destroyed by cruise missiles within an hour (simultaneous time on top).

And with 8 UAV's you can basically have an UAV transmit for 5 minutes, switch off, reposition, and retransmit, as long as 3 or 4 UAV's are transmitting at any given time.
Wich means that an enemy basically has 5 minutes to get to an UAV if that UAV is stealth.

So you triangulate from at least 3 ground based transmitters to know where the UAV's are, and you triangulate from at least 3 UAV's to know where your cruise missile is at.

This really isn't rocket science.

S2
07 Dec 13,, 05:57
"I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned..."

Realistically? Virtually unconcerned. Romantically? I might wist for the good ol' daze a bit. You know- gun positions fifty meters or so apart, land-lines being cut everywhere by vehicles, aiming circles getting knocked down in the mud, charts and darts racing with freddy FADAC for a firing solution (required but kept things fun). On some missions a well-trained HCO (Horizontal Chart Operator) and VCO (vertical chart operator) could give you a solution faster than vacumn tube Freddy. Usually initial rounds. Adjustment rounds always went to FADAC.

Don't need it anymore. When we ain't dinkin' around in these piss-ant insurgencies we prefer Battalion FFE TOT. No adjustment. 24 155mm rounds intersect from all over the grid on one point. Now. End-Of-Mission. All technology. Tight as gnat's azz survey, accurate muzzle velocities recorded and updated near instantly. Solid metro. Digital secure comms. In short, everything necessary to disperse a battalion of artillery and yet fire accurate battalion-sized massed fires which minimize detection but maximize effect.

Where the shoe fits, don't argue and say a silent blessing.

JAD_333
07 Dec 13,, 06:47
Realistically? Virtually unconcerned. Romantically? I might wist for the good ol' daze a bit. You know- gun positions fifty meters or so apart, land-lines being cut everywhere by vehicles, aiming circles getting knocked down in the mud, charts and darts racing with freddy FADAC for a firing solution (required but kept things fun). On some missions a well-trained HCO (Horizontal Chart Operator) and VCO (vertical chart operator) could give you a solution faster than vacumn tube Freddy. Usually initial rounds. Adjustment rounds always went to FADAC.
Don't need it anymore. When we ain't dinkin' around in these piss-ant insurgencies we prefer Battalion FFE TOT. No adjustment. 24 155mm rounds intersect from all over the grid on one point. Now. End-Of-Mission. All technology. Tight as gnat's azz survey, accurate muzzle velocities recorded and updated near instantly. Solid metro. Digital secure comms. In short, everything necessary to disperse a battalion of artillery and yet fire accurate battalion-sized massed fires which minimize detection but maximize effect.

I love your vivid illustration of the old versus the new. Having never been around an artillery site I can't claim to know exactly what you're describing, but I can tell you this much: I know more now than I ever did.

But the question had to do with over-reliance on electronics and electrical power dependency. Let me put it another way. Would an outage be more crippling now on the battlefield than before, or are there fallback procedures that can be quickly implemented to continue effective operations should power sources run dry?

S2
07 Dec 13,, 07:41
"...But the question had to do with over-reliance on electronics and electrical power dependency..."

I missed that in your reply and, instead, presumed it an example of this larger question-

"I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned...But what I want to understand is the term over-reliance. At what point does it become 'over' versus simply 'reliant'?"

Not sure where I'm at with all this but my original reply stands. I'm non-plussed by it all. Unconcerned. I don't twitter or instagram and won't. I don't skype but sorta wish I did. Don't NEED it though. If I did, I'd be grateful. Didn't own a cell phone until 2001 and didn't own a computer until 2004. Now I don't maintain a land-line but live on a computer while benefiting from communities like WAB (although there's really nothing out there quite like this lil' corner of heaven:rolleyes:).

I'm trying to recall the last army brought to its knees by an "over-reliance" on technology? Couldn't be many. I'm trying to recall the last nation brought to its knees from promulgating a culture that readily embraces technology.

Doesn't mean redundancy of systems and methodologies. Always good to have fall-backs.

Still, they're fall-backs for a reason.

Officer of Engineers
07 Dec 13,, 08:32
I'm trying to recall the last army brought to its knees by an "over-reliance" on technology? Couldn't be many. I'm trying to recall the last nation brought to its knees from promulgating a culture that readily embraces technology.I can think of two. Pre-WWII France and Nazi Germany. Both were waiting for the next best thing while being shafted by the "it's good enough" powers.

astralis
07 Dec 13,, 17:29
well, in the end they weren't screwed over by over-reliance on technology; in the end they were both screwed over by poor leadership and poor strategic decisions.

it's true they spent way too much chasing after the just over-the-horizon technology (especially the nazis), but i suspect they would have been doomed anyways even if they made all the right technological moves.

tech is nice. the people always matter more, as S2 pointed out. and what's shocking for me is seeing the gap, not just in the tech, but in the amount of education/training that the US and to a slightly lesser extent the rest of the ABCA, gives its people.

JAD_333
07 Dec 13,, 21:33
"...But the question had to do with over-reliance on electronics and electrical power dependency..."

I missed that in your reply and, instead, presumed it an example of this larger question-

"I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned...But what I want to understand is the term over-reliance. At what point does it become 'over' versus simply 'reliant'?"

Yes, I did scrunch down the question to a particular situation. The two technologies you described, first from your day and the more automated technology which replaced it, represent a progression toward greater automation of the functioning of an artillery unit. It is a microcosm that describes the bigger phenomenon I am talking about. That is, as we eliminate human involvement and replace it with automation, the human skills necessary to keep it operating narrow down to data entry and knowing which buttons to push. The key ingredient, however, is electrical power. Without it the machine stops and all results cease. This brings us to an understanding of what over-reliance means. If there is no power and the human operator is unable to accomplish the desired result by alternative means, then we have over-reliance. Reasonable reliance would suggest viable alternate backup systems. My concern is whether we have adequate backup.

I am not much worried about small scale functions, like in my business, not having CAD to draw house plans can be replaced by hand-drawn plans. The loss of my accounting program would be a hassle unless I routinely print a paper backup, which I don't. But massive-scale functions that control banking, transportation, electrical grids, medical machines, military systems, satellite communications are far more difficult to manage without electrical power--impossible I would say. So, as we become more reliant on these systems, we also become more vulnerable to any disruption in their operation. We can even see a day when so much is dependent on electrical power that merely cutting the power, sends us right back to total reliance on human mental and physical power and all that that entails. If that were to happen, the only countries that might be unaffected are those that are still backwards. Perhaps, nature in its genius has programmed into man a drive to progress but also insurance that if he progresses along the wrong course, his drive will slow down or his world will collapse. In either case, he will want to start over again. It seems to me the general progress man has made over the centuries has no plausible end in itself, only in some of its esoteric parts, and on the whole cannot be sustained indefinitely. If we get to a place where we just push buttons and one day we push a button and nothing happens, what then? We're just that far away from a primitive existence as we are 100 years away from extinction if we stop reproducing today. Well, happy thoughts for a lazy Saturday...




Not sure where I'm at with all this but my original reply stands. I'm non-plussed by it all. Unconcerned. I don't twitter or instagram and won't. I don't skype but sorta wish I did. Don't NEED it though. If I did, I'd be grateful. Didn't own a cell phone until 2001 and didn't own a computer until 2004. Now I don't maintain a land-line but live on a computer while benefiting from communities like WAB (although there's really nothing out there quite like this lil' corner of heaven:rolleyes:).

I'm inclined to your lack of concern inasmuch as I can't do anything about it. Speaking of cellphones and such, I was an early adopter. First cellphone in 1984 compliments of DoD weighed 4 lbs. First computer was a Singer--yes, they made a computer--and you had to hook it to a TV and write your own programs in basic. But tech moved really fast then. Got a Trash 80, then a PC in 1985. Piece of handmade trash that set me back $1,500 at the time...$3k in today's money. Then Dells one after the other, cheaper and cheaper, until now a $500 desktop is a 1000 times better than my first PC. Skype is nice, but to talk to the relative where they see my ugly mug, iPhone's FaceTime works fine. For business, a cell and a computer are nearly indispensable. The new smartphones now serve as computers in a pinch, although for accounting a desk top is better. They save me a lot of time, but can also waste time. Like you, I don't Twitter etc, although Facebook I do a little of to keep up with relatives and friends. As for the WAB, yes, I agree...:)

Albany Rifles
08 Dec 13,, 00:51
Steve, while this thread has taken a bit of an exit ramp I LOVED your great explanation of heavy metal thunder.

Like the A-10 we grunts love our DS artillery.

Mihais
08 Dec 13,, 01:15
Like the A-10 we grunts love our DS artillery.

Especially when they manage to shoot the enemy,not us :biggrin:

As for over-reliance on tech.Every tech at some point becomes cheap,simple to operate,easy to manufacture and very reliable.It doesn't takes much imagination to see some wise men 50000 years ago debating over-reliance on bows and arrows.
Black powder can be made better and safer by some kids as a hobby than it was by the best technicians 300 years ago.

Electricity and computing are fast getting to that level,when we don't even notice them.We'll find then new shiny toys.

Minskaya
08 Dec 13,, 04:21
JAD is right. Smartphones are now like mini-computers :)



-Sent from my Android-

JAD_333
08 Dec 13,, 16:10
JAD is right. Smartphones are now like mini-computers :)



-Sent from my Android-

Not as easy as a PC, but good in a pinch.

Albany Rifles
08 Dec 13,, 18:57
There is more computing power in an IPhone 4 than in both the Command and Lunar Modules used in the Apollo program.

Gun Grape
10 Dec 13,, 03:35
Don't know what it is called at Sill

A B*tch :Dancing-Banana:

Gun Grape
10 Dec 13,, 03:52
[B]. PADS (Position Azimuth Determination System) might, for instance, make a re-emergence. A cool, HUMVEE mounted gyro-nav system that had to periodically re-orient over a known point and a limited range (about twenty miles max from the orienting station). Still, a quantum leap forward for artillery survey. New and utterly revolutionary in 1985.

Outmoded by 1991.
You could go more than 20 miles and still be accurate as long as you did 5 min Z-Vels .(4th order Survey or 0.060mil PE accuracy for those not blessed by the King)

We also had ground based beacons that were a prelude to BFT way back when. But I cannot remember what the system was called

Albany Rifles
10 Dec 13,, 16:06
A B*tch :Dancing-Banana:

Get back in the BOC, Gunny. Back in the BOC.

Gun Grape
11 Dec 13,, 03:22
Get back in the BOC, Gunny. Back in the BOC.

They ran out of lifer juice.

You cannot imagine the joy it use to bring me watching young 2dLts at Sill.

Especially when we rode them around for an hour in the back of a 5 ton, with all the flaps down. Stopped, told them to get out. Then show them a defined space in the distance and tell them , "You have 5 min to work up a Call for fire, both Grid and Polar."

Where are we SSgt?

I don't know sir, You have the map and compass. And about 3 mins before you NoGo this event.

Good times

S2
11 Dec 13,, 04:58
"...Especially when we rode them around for an hour in the back of a 5 ton, with all the flaps down. Stopped, told them to get out. Then show them a defined space in the distance and tell them , 'You have 5 min to work up a Call for fire, both Grid and Polar.'"

You a gunnery instructor in FAOBC? Those were the only guys I know that were teaching observed fire procedures. I had an Army SFC gunnery instructor through both OBC and FACBOC, btw.

Albany Rifles
11 Dec 13,, 17:20
They ran out of lifer juice.

You cannot imagine the joy it use to bring me watching young 2dLts at Sill.

Especially when we rode them around for an hour in the back of a 5 ton, with all the flaps down. Stopped, told them to get out. Then show them a defined space in the distance and tell them , "You have 5 min to work up a Call for fire, both Grid and Polar."

Where are we SSgt?

I don't know sir, You have the map and compass. And about 3 mins before you NoGo this event.

Good times

ITS CALLED RESECTION YOU DUMBASS SIRS!!!!!


DID NONE OF YOU "GENTLEMEN" PAY ATTENTION IN CLASS!??!??!


Did it go something like that, Gunny?

Doktor
11 Dec 13,, 18:24
I see our MilPros are still having fun with their abbrevs on us civilians... good show Gents, good show indeed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aeNmupIYQk

Albany Rifles
11 Dec 13,, 19:19
BOC - Battery Operations Center

OBC - Officer Basic Course

I - Infantry

FA- FA Field Artillery

GFY - Go Fvck Yourself

You get the idea.....

Gun Grape
12 Dec 13,, 01:16
[B]
You a gunnery instructor in FAOBC? Those were the only guys I know that were teaching observed fire procedures. I had an Army SFC gunnery instructor through both OBC and FACBOC, btw.

Not when I first got there. The 0811 (13B) instructors were assigned to the 1/78th same as the Army. Then the MarDet made a pact with the Devil and we all fell under the Marine Instructor Branch at the Gunnery Dept, USAFAS.

When we didn't have a class, or a small class, the "extra instructors" helped out with the FABOC and the Advanced course. It was a requirement if Marine Officers were in the class. Or if one of the Army officers were going to Alaska. The only Army post that still had the M-101s. We having the only 101 qualified instructors.

Gun Grape
16 Dec 13,, 06:21
ITS CALLED RESECTION YOU DUMBASS SIRS!!!!!


DID NONE OF YOU "GENTLEMEN" PAY ATTENTION IN CLASS!??!??!


Did it go something like that, Gunny?

Pretty close.

One last flashback. S-2 should enjoy this.

The nightmare of "aiming Circle hill".

Its not their fault. From day one Accuracy and precision are pounded into their young impressionable skulls.

Then they get to the hill. They spend 20 mins setting up the tripod. Because "It has to be precise" They will try to get the plumb bob to hang exactly over the indent that the firing pin made on the primer of the 105 shell being used as their "OS"

After the first 5 min, the young Marine SSgt would get agitated. And start dropping little hints

"Artillery is a AREA weapon Gentlemen"

"There is a reason that we have something called "Adjust fire"

A 8 digit grid denotes an accuracy of 10 meters. That means that the grid wrote on the tag is saying you are in a 10 meter circle.. SO you could move your aiming circle a small amount if you had a LOS obstruction to the EOL.

They still havn't gotten the hint. The SSgt has run out of lifer juice

"Jesus Christ Lieutenants, We are not launching the fricken Space Shuttle here"

Albany Rifles
16 Dec 13,, 16:56
Yeah, Gunny. We could be an anal lot. But I always had my platton trainer from OBC to blame....SFC Gamble....3 tour Viet Nam LRRP Ranger. He made us anal!

It was about week 3 of IMPC when the "area" part of area fire weapon finally sunk in on me when we were shooting 81mms.

Native
17 Dec 13,, 20:49
My rate was required to know how to use UTM's (Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system) and I know that naval gunners were required to be able to do targeting in UTM's in order support ground troops.
I did a ton of LOB and AOU work.

desertswo
17 Dec 13,, 21:20
My rate was required to know how to use UTM's (Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system) and I know that naval gunners were required to be able to do targeting in UTM's in order support ground troops.
I did a ton of LOB and AOU work.

Yup, got to be able to talk the talk and at least drop one in the area now and then.

S2
18 Dec 13,, 08:52
They spend 20 mins setting up the tripod. Because "It has to be precise" They will try to get the plumb bob to hang exactly over the indent that the firing pin made on the primer of the 105 shell being used as their 'OS'"

Crazy. You can look right down the middle of the A.C. baseplate and approx it. Once the A.C. is screwed on there's still play allowing you to slide the circle and inch or so to be dead-on. Assuming your gear isn't screwed up it shouldn't take more than 2 minutes to be set up and be oriented. With a trig list you can compute the orienting angle enroute, set up and level your circle, orient the 0-3200 line roughly on your azimuth of fire using the lower non-recording motion, set off your orienting angle on the upper recording motion and sight to the EOL with your lower.

A.C. is laid. Set up your safety circle 10 meters or more away and orient using Grid Azimuth method. +/- 3 mils (at Ft. Sill) you're good to go. Zero out your circles and lay the guns.

M-2 Aiming Circle was an extraordinary instrument once understood. You could pull sight-to-crest data during the advance party occupation and have your safety-t ready for gun-chiefs on arrival. You could really easily and precisely transfer direction essentially limited only by max LOS. Resection, celestial observation, lot of fun stuff.

Sorta miss my ol' M-2 circle.