Commanche alternatives?

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Rune Børsjø" wrote in message
...
How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you
can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.

Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall

But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect
incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore,
you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement
that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new"
battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an
issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake.

For UCAV & CAS perhaps the solution is giving out laser
designators to the ground units and making that mark the *only*
target of interest to the UCAV.
Lot's of details of course: "code for the day" in the mark, reject
the mark if two or more examples can be seen in seperate areas, etc.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall

But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect
incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore,
you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement
that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new"
battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an
issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake.


There's no doubt in my mind we NEED IFF for ground forces
even with conventional manned platforms. We have seen far
too many blue on blue incidents in recent conflicts

IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.

IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.

As is recognition by human pilots in the heat of action

Still a couple of orders of magnitude better than any UCAV IFF we're
going to see in the near future.

We can't even build the suckers to fly reliably under non-optimal
conditions yet, much less deal with threats while doing so.


I have no illusions that we will see UCAV's flying CAS in the
next decade but it is the way of the future with low level
aviation becoming increasingly hazardous as MANPAD's
and other weapons become increasingly common.

Keith

In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it
depends on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam.

Well, there's some nice claims about it, but it's still vulnerable to a
number of countermeasures. If you're rariating to tell someone that
you're who you are, you're also telling the bad guys "Hey! Come shoot
me!"

The same tech that makes a this useful for IFF makes it simpler to find
machines that radiate a lot.

Spoofing requires breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to
be done continuously into multiple aperatures.

With increases in machines that *live* off of information flow, jamming
will suddenly become a lot more popular.

And with all of that extra RF floating around out there, radar-homing
missiles will be *very* much in vogue.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

A good, reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be
wonderful, but I am not holding my breath while waiting for it to be
fielded.

We're still waiting for a good, reliable portable communications system
that can be used across all services, can't be easily intercepted, and
doesn't use up batteries at an insane rate.

What are the odds that we'll get good IFF or smart UCAVs before we get
radios that work even as well as a typical cell phone?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote

"Paul F Austin" wrote

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Rune Børsjø" wrote
How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you
can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.

IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.

BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it
depends
on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam. Spoofing
requires
breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to be done continuously
into multiple aperatures.

Gee, how many times did we hear that, "Product X is going to revolutionize
the way you do process Y!", only to spend the next ten years doing process
Y
the same way we always did because Product X never quite lived up to its
promises, or ran way over budget and got the axe, etc.? The Navy's A-12
Avenger, the Air Force's AMST, the Army's DIVADS, Grizzly, Wolverine,
M180,
various digital command and control packages, the laughable attempt to
field
those original big honking green monster boxes (TACS computers)... A good,
reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be wonderful, but I am
not
holding my breath while waiting for it to be fielded. Till then I'll take
the manned shooters in the close fight.

That hits close to home. But equally, other much maligned systems performed
exactly as advertised: Abrams, Bradley, APSJ and (oh yes) Apache. Remember
how all of those systems were 'way too complex for ham-handed GIs to operate
and maintain and they were all overpriced gas-guzzlers...

GPS performed beyond the planners wildest expectations as have the C-17s
(son o' AMST).

BFT worked well enough in Iraq-2 to get everybody's britches tight.
Currently, it requires a CINCGARS radio, making it tough to migrate down to
every troop. According to AvWeek, "RFID tag technology" is intended to make
BFT as ubiquitous as GPS is now. I have trouble picturing that since the
signal levels from such an approach will necessarily by_very_low, making
jamming much easier. We'll see, it isn't here yet.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Paul F Austin" wrote
in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"Rune Børsjø" wrote
How the hell is gonna tell friendly
from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good
for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility
and presence that you can't
get out of a glorified model airplane
kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time
to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in
front of it.
IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.

IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is
a real pain.

BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize
IFF. Because it
depends
on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to
spoof or jam. Spoofing requires
breaking encryption in real-time and jamming
has to be done continuously
into multiple aperatures.

Gee, how many times did we hear that, "Product
X is going to revolutionize
the way you do process Y!", only to spend the
next ten years doing process Y
the same way we always did because Product X
never quite lived up to its
promises, or ran way over budget and got the
axe, etc.? The Navy's A-12
Avenger, the Air Force's AMST, the Army's DIVADS,
Grizzly, Wolverine, M180,
various digital command and control packages,
the laughable attempt to field
those original big honking green monster boxes
(TACS computers)... A good,
reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units
will be wonderful, but I am not
holding my breath while waiting for it to be
fielded. Till then I'll take
the manned shooters in the close fight.

Brooks





One other thing:whenever someone comes up with technology that "will make
manned aircraft obsolete", something happens that keeps the guys and gals
in the cockpits. You will NEVER take people out of the cockpit. Oh, there
will be UCAVs for really dangerous missions, or as expendable wild weasels,
but I'll bet that manned aircraft are going to be around a LONG time.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Rune Børsjø" wrote in message
...
How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out
armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you
can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.

Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall

But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect
incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore,
you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement
that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new"
battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an
issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake.

For UCAV & CAS perhaps the solution is giving out laser
designators to the ground units and making that mark the *only*
target of interest to the UCAV.
Lot's of details of course: "code for the day" in the mark, reject
the mark if two or more examples can be seen in seperate areas, etc.

The trouble is that for LASER designators, the Murphy's Law that says
"tracers work both ways" is true in spades.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

A good, reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be
wonderful, but I am not holding my breath while waiting for it to be
fielded.

We're still waiting for a good, reliable portable communications system
that can be used across all services, can't be easily intercepted, and
doesn't use up batteries at an insane rate.

What are the odds that we'll get good IFF or smart UCAVs before we get
radios that work even as well as a typical cell phone?

DARPA has been working on the battery problem. They're developing a small
diesel generator which is the same size as a SINCGARS battery pack
(including the fuel tank). The tank can be topped up with diesel at any time
and the assembly has about 4X the endurance of the battery it replaces. The
DG proper is a 1 inch cube.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
. ..

"Kevin Brooks" wrote

"Paul F Austin" wrote

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Rune Børsjø" wrote
How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out
armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you
can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.

IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.

BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it
depends
on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam. Spoofing
requires
breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to be done
continuously
into multiple aperatures.

Gee, how many times did we hear that, "Product X is going to
revolutionize
the way you do process Y!", only to spend the next ten years doing
process
Y
the same way we always did because Product X never quite lived up to its
promises, or ran way over budget and got the axe, etc.? The Navy's A-12
Avenger, the Air Force's AMST, the Army's DIVADS, Grizzly, Wolverine,
M180,
various digital command and control packages, the laughable attempt to
field
those original big honking green monster boxes (TACS computers)... A
good,
reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be wonderful, but I am
not
holding my breath while waiting for it to be fielded. Till then I'll
take
the manned shooters in the close fight.

That hits close to home. But equally, other much maligned systems
performed
exactly as advertised: Abrams, Bradley, APSJ and (oh yes) Apache. Remember
how all of those systems were 'way too complex for ham-handed GIs to
operate
and maintain and they were all overpriced gas-guzzlers...

You are misunderstanding my intent a bit, no doubt because I provided less
than stellar examples in some cases. My beef is more with the more minor
"transformational" packages; some years back we were promised a workable
engineer module to the Army's battle command and control system which was
going to make us oh-so-much-more effective. It languished; the maneuver
control system itself was a pain in the butt, and not well liked at all. The
saving grace for the engineer side of the house was a couple of pretty sharp
captains assigned to the 3rd ID engineer brigade, who took it on themselves
to develop a more workable, and available, HTML based system (SapperNet)
that quickly became rather popular throughout a lot of the engineer
community, nad became the basis for the 3rd ID's own "MarNet". Of course the
MCS weenies who visited us and saw how we used it during a V Corps
Warfighter feigned being impressed and I was told that they were planning to
use it as the basis for a reworked MCS-E system. I don't know if it has ever
gone beyond that point.


GPS performed beyond the planners wildest expectations as have the C-17s
(son o' AMST).

GPS has been great (though the PLGRS was overly heavy and complex compared
to civilian GPS receivers then available). But how easy has it been to
decide on a common mapping system for use in the command and contol systems?
Not very, last I knew (a 20th EN BDE conference I attended got all balled up
on that issue, with about three different systems being proposed).
Meanwhile, the Aussies bought a civilian GIS package and had it adapted to
meet their requirements for battlespace visualization. Where are US Army
forces now in that regard? How many have any real capability to transfer
digital mapping or at least layer info for resident base mapping? The
promise has been greater than the reward to date, by far.


BFT worked well enough in Iraq-2 to get everybody's britches tight.
Currently, it requires a CINCGARS radio,

That's "SINCGARS", IIRC (Single Channel Ground Air Radio System).

making it tough to migrate down to
every troop. According to AvWeek, "RFID tag technology" is intended to
make
BFT as ubiquitous as GPS is now. I have trouble picturing that since the
signal levels from such an approach will necessarily by_very_low, making
jamming much easier. We'll see, it isn't here yet.

I presume BFT is the elementry locating system that ties into the CAS
platforms (those so configured) and gives them a rather crude sketch of the
locations of friendly units? If so, that requires the later block SINGARS,
with PLGRS input, and it is from what I understand a very basic capability
as yet. We are not at the point of having a decent IFF package for ground
systems; we may get there, but who knows when? As a 2LT at EOBC, we were
taught to use the M9 ACE wrok estimate tables, because we were told, "That
is going to be the system you will be using." Three years later I left the
active duty side of the house without ever having laid eyes on one.

Brooks

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:01:08 -0600 (CST), wrote:

I'd think if there were more similarities than differences, there'd be a
majority of parts interchangable. Any idea just how few are
interchangable? I don't but I'd bet there are very, very few!

I don't mean similar at the rivet level, with interchangeable parts -
I mean similar in design philosophy, with the later design being to
some degree a derivative of the previous design, just as the F-106 was
related to the F-102. To me there are significant design
similarities between the CH-21, CH-46, and CH-47.

You ever looked at pics of these two helos?

I've spent quite a bit of time in CH-47s, and have also flown in a
'46.

John Hairell )