Friendly Fire from aircraft - Page 3

narwan · #21 June 30th, 2005, 09:21 AM

On modern technology, the more data it will generate for combat units the more it will probably influence the battle NEGATIVELY.

Both data and information are near useless for actual combat units (data are just loose parcels of observations, information is structured data where the loose elements are combined and linked). It is only when information becomes KNOWLEDGE that it'll start to help combat units. Knowledge is contextualised information, where the new information is integrated in the total picture.
The difference is that data and information need (a lot of) interpretation before it can be put to use. After doing just that, you end up with knowledge. However, knowledge itself doesn't change a thing about the situation. You have to act upon it, think of something, 'innovate' (innovation is the application of knowledge to change an existing situation).

All of this takes time, a lot of time. Which on the modern battlefield is a scarce thing. The big issue becomes which data, information, knowledge, and innovation (battle plans in this case) should go to what level and part of the militairy machine at which point? So much of it will be generated that it'll easily lead to 'swamping' officers and troops with info that's useless to them. And a single bottleneck can cripple the entire effort.

Think of the office worker who spends 3 hours a day going through his emails of which 3/4 aren't relevant to him or his actual work. Wasting time like this can be deadly on the modern battlefield.

More data and information is not always a good thing, just like more options on a computer (program) does NOT make it more user friendly (a mistake many programmers still make!).

Narwan

Pyros · #22 June 30th, 2005, 10:54 AM

What if some day the soldier will be nothing more than a weapon platform carrying intelligent weapons, smart ammo and sensors?

Mobhack · #23 June 30th, 2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Pyros said:
What if some day the soldier will be nothing more than a weapon platform carrying intelligent weapons, smart ammo and sensors?

Then - read "Starship Troopers" and avoid the poxy movies made that merely used the name while almost completely ignoring the original Heinelen book they were allegedly based on

In any case - getting way off topic for the game now.

Cheers
Andy

Pyros · #24 June 30th, 2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

PlasmaKrab said:

Quote:

Pyros said :
p.s Using satellite positioning:
all participants in the battlefield can know where everybody else is at all times

Nope, that is when you have GPS + instant tactical network + everyone with a computerized interface. There is no advantage in knowing where everyone is, but having to tell them on the radio each time!

You need something more like the navigational aids you get in cars these days (or in SP howitzers), only networked.
Most of all, you need data transfer. Ask the US guys in Western Asia who have to buy off satellite band from private comm satellites!

I know but I just want to generalize the basics...
First time I read articles concerning the command & control battlefield of the future was back in 1996 (reading JANES) while going on a mission to the Aegean sea

narwan · #25 June 30th, 2005, 11:34 AM

Ahhhh, Heinlein, I have a whole row of them in my bookcase.... Startship troopers is one of my favourites.

But the starship troopers view of soldiering doesn't really change the problem. If the trooper only carries the smart weapons, there's still the question where he carries them, what targets he picks, and to what degree he can trust his sensors. It is sometimes surprisingly easy to fool these.
During the Kosovo campaign for example NATO used technology that could identify the shapes of tanks and other AFV's (as opposed to humans having to poor over the pictures). To verify that these were actual vehicles and not decoys they verified it with heat sensing data to see if the vehicle had an actual engine (different signature from the rest of the vehicle). Then they had a smart missile (worth hundreds of thousands) fired at the target. Which often was nothing more than the silhouette of a tank painted on the road with a big container of water placed on the area where the engine would be.

narwan

Chaim_Krause · #26 June 30th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Quote:

BigJim said:

Quote:

Chaim_Krause said:
@ Big Jim
Lets see if I got your point you think that IFF or the existance of IFF needs tons of research???? As to the last part of your statment thats just silly on the face of it.
If you are going to make statements like that, back them up with facts. Fratricide is a huge problem

And speed doesn't have anything to do with it. Aircraft have blue on blue even at a hover.

No, you didn't get my point. I am not saying the existence or use of IFF needs research. I am saying your claim that air-to-ground blue-on-blue is rare needs research. You make a statement and don't back it up with data. FYI, I work at CGSC and it is my job to make sure simulations are an accurate representation of the battlefield as I assist the college's faculty to instruct our Army's Majors. I have seen many documented cases of blue-on-blue and have heard many second-hand stories from soldiers and Marines who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very big problem. If you are going to claim it is rare, what is your source? Where did you get your data? That is what needs research, not the existence or use of IFF systems.

As for my comment on speed, you said "Sure there will be some foul ups but in the main the system works (even at 700 knots ESPECIALLY at 700 knots)." My point is that speed is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is an airplane doing 700 knots or a helicopter sitting at a hover. Decision time is what is relevant. The longer a pilot has to process the facts, the more chance he has to recheck his assumptions and lower the chance of blue-on-blue.

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are here. WinSPMBT is a great game and I am glad you like it. Maybe I can make some scenarios you'd like.

BigJim · #27 July 1st, 2005, 01:49 AM

I guess you missed my point, I cannot produce any data of blue on blue in the situation I depicted cause it doesn't happen. Perhaps you can provide some cases of blue on blue in a "friendly" zone of control, where a pilot fired on his own assets while over flying them on the way to his assigned area of mission?????

ps I would love to try some senario's by you and I am not offended by those who disagree with me

Quote:

Chaim_Krause said:

Quote:

BigJim said:
[huge problem

And speed doesn't have anything to do with it. Aircraft have blue on blue even at a hover.

No, you didn't get my point. I am not saying the existence or use of IFF needs research. I am saying your claim that air-to-ground blue-on-blue is rare needs research. You make a statement and don't back it up with data. FYI, I work at CGSC and it is my job to make sure simulations are an accurate representation of the battlefield as I assist the college's faculty to instruct our Army's Majors. I have seen many documented cases of blue-on-blue and have heard many second-hand stories from soldiers and Marines who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very big problem. If you are going to claim it is rare, what is your source? Where did you get your data? That is what needs research, not the existence or use of IFF systems.

As for my comment on speed, you said "Sure there will be some foul ups but in the main the system works (even at 700 knots ESPECIALLY at 700 knots)." My point is that speed is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is an airplane doing 700 knots or a helicopter sitting at a hover. Decision time is what is relevant. The longer a pilot has to process the facts, the more chance he has to recheck his assumptions and lower the chance of blue-on-blue.

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are here. WinSPMBT is a great game and I am glad you like it. Maybe I can make some scenarios you'd like.

[/quote]

Pergite · #28 July 1st, 2005, 03:51 AM

Quote:

BigJim said:
I guess you missed my point, I cannot produce any data of blue on blue in the situation I depicted cause it doesn't happen. Perhaps you can provide some cases of blue on blue in a "friendly" zone of control, where a pilot fired on his own assets while over flying them on the way to his assigned area of mission?????

I allready did... and the pilot even asked for permission to engage and was denied. Afghanistan 2002. The Canadian soldiers were conducting a live-fire training exercise in a recognized training area. They where bombed with a LGB.
In a separate incident was when a pilot dropped a 500-pund bomb on some other canadiens during a training accident.

Then there was a B-52 bomber that dropped a 2,000-pound guided bomb on positions manned by ground troops who were directing air strikes against nearby Taliban targets. Or when a BBC team acompanying SF tropps in northern Iraq was attacked.

Put all this in a hostile combat enviroment and you will have to multiply the accidents bigtime.

I however dont know what you in this case argue as a friendly zone of control.
And once again, NO, there are no standardized groundbased automatic IFF system in use...yet.

kevin · #29 July 1st, 2005, 11:32 AM

I meant that as a % of overall fatricide casualties, airstrikes have gone down. Fatricide still exists in the form of bad arty coordinates, panic fire from troops, etc.

BigJim · #30 July 5th, 2005, 06:06 PM

Ok I take it then that the pilot was American and fired on Canadian troops because they either had different IFF's or none at all??? You must admit tho that this is RARE situation. I live in Tucson, right near the A-10 Base those guys fly "hot" training missions all the time and I have yet to hear of a "blue on blue" situation out here. Anyhow I guess the point is moot, the game allows it to happen and it's not a big enough deal to warrant the work it would take to program it out.

Thanks for you input tho, I was taken a back by your reports and I have no doubt that they are correct.