What if: GPS and all Western satellites are successfully neutralised

[JAD_333]

JAD is right. Smartphones are now like mini-computers :)

---

-Sent from my Android-

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

[Minskaya]

JAD is right. Smartphones are now like mini-computers :)

---

-Sent from my Android-

[Mihais]

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

Especially when they manage to shoot the enemy,not us

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.

[Albany Rifles]

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.

[JAD_333]

"...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).

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...:)

[astralis]

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.

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.

[S2]

JAD_333 Reply

"...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).

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.

[JAD_333]

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]

JAD_333 Reply

"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.

[FJV]

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.

[desertswo]

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.

[Albany Rifles]

"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.

[Albany Rifles]

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

Regularly

[Doktor]

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.