Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Military Tech: GPS and Networking

Posted by michael on Fri Apr 18, 2003 04:45 PM
from the lost-in-the-desert dept.
Technology Hardware
king of birds writes "The New York Times has an interesting article on the present military use of GPS. While some units have rather modern system that can graphically display locations of other troops, others rely on 10-year-old 5 channel receivers. Kind of odd when I can 12 channels on my civilian model (with admittedly lower spatial accuracy)." aaronvegh writes "From the Canadian Press, a story about how a US infantry division uses a system of transponders and servers to track friendly and enemy units, from the headquarters to inside individual tanks. Talk about total information awareness! No friendlies were harmed in the making of this story."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Military Tech: GPS and Networking 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • GPS doesn't stop you getting lost. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Boss, Pointy Haired (537010) on Friday April 18 2003, @04:48PM (#5762234)
    It just tells you exactly where you are lost.
    • Well that's why you set up a way point of your home base/camp site/vehicle. When you get lost, you tell it to return to here, and you get a pretty little arrow that says "home is 3 miles that way" and the arrow constantly is updated on the fly. It doesn't just list friggin longitude and latitude numbers..well, maybe yours does.

  • Obligatory plug... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rorschach1 (174480) on Friday April 18 2003, @04:50PM (#5762250) Homepage
    Many /.'ers are probably already familliar with APRS for position reporting over ham radio. APRS has some serious limitations, though, and there's an effort to develop a new, extensible, open protocol at opentrac.org [opentrac.org]. Things are just starting to take off, with prototype hardware in use and a couple of test programs written. Check it out and see what you can contribute.

    My personal goal: A poor man's Land Warrior system for paintball scenario games. =]

      • Day-to-day operations give you the chance to test the system out under a real load, so you know it'll work in an emergency.

        The biggest problem I've seen is that the channel is just overloaded in many places. People using excessively long paths, too many high digipeaters too close together, and too-frequent transmissions.

        OpenTrac doesn't fix that (there are methods already being discussed and tested for those problems), but it does let you do all sorts of nifty stuff with telemetry and such. And it's far
          • The current hardware's the same as APRS. You could reprogram a TinyTrack3 and it'd do OpenTrac as easily as APRS.

            A big focus of the project is open hardware and software - something that's sorely lacking in APRS. Take the MIM [navy.mil], for example. It's a pretty clever little telemetry transmitter, but it sells for $79. Seems pretty excessive for a circuit board with a PIC and some support circuitry. No source code is provided, either. I'm working on something similar, but it'll be completely open source, pr

  • Risky (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sakusha (441986) on Friday April 18 2003, @04:51PM (#5762254)
    Isn't it a little risky to put location transponders on all your military units? If the enemy cracks your transponder codes, they can easily target you.
    • If the enemy cracks your transponder codes, they can easily target you.

      Or, even easyer:

      If a vehicle is captured, the system has a self-destruct mechanism that can be triggered remotely.

      Just crack that, and don't waste any of your precious ammo...

      • Come to think of it, they don't even need to crack the codes. If the units continuously broadcast position info via radio, standard radio location techniques would be sufficient. You wouldn't necessarily be able to tell which units were high-value targets, but it's enough of a risk. Maybe small burst transmissions would do the job, but these units seem to be in continuous communication.

        • Re:It's even easyer than that... (Score:4, Informative)

          by gailwynand (213761) on Friday April 18 2003, @05:13PM (#5762386) Homepage

          Many military radios can do frequency hopping - changing frequencies many times a second. So unless you have a similar device AND you know the algorithm, AND you know the starting frequency, AND you know when the radios were turned on...

          Come on, I know someone works in a Comm MOS and can 'splain it better ;-)

          • Re:It's even easyer than that... (Score:5, Informative)

            by feepness (543479) on Friday April 18 2003, @05:18PM (#5762406) Homepage
            Many military radios can do frequency hopping - changing frequencies many times a second. So unless you have a similar device AND you know the algorithm, AND you know the starting frequency, AND you know when the radios were turned on...

            I use to work on military communications. The version I worked on switched frequencies about 10,000 times a second. That was ten years ago. Not only is this harder to track, but even more importantly it's harder to jam. Keys were changed daily.
            • An oscilliscope can show a waveform, and through that the user can derive the frequency of modulation.

              What keeps this from being done to find the frequency just "hopped" to? Why can't the whole waveform be recorded for future demodulation once the frequencies and times have been determined?

              BTW, once we get reliable quantum entanglement, this will be irrelevant as we could do perfect encryption. Well, perfect until the commies figure out how to latch onto and/or predict entanglement values.
              • You could store the wave form, but unless you could crack it quickly it probably wouldn't do you any good as nearly all of the info you could glean from the broadcasts are very perishable (time-sensitive). What good would it do you if you knew where your enemy was 5 weeks ago!

                Also, if the frequency is changing at a rate of 10kHz, simply doing a Fourier Transform of the signal probably won't help you much in trying to determine the true frequency at any given point in time, especially if you don't have a c

            • Re:For multiple units? (Score:5, Informative)

              by bugnuts (94678) on Friday April 18 2003, @06:40PM (#5762771) Journal
              Slow? resource intensive?

              GPS uses triangulation, essentially, although it's a lot easier since it sends out a timestamp. To triangulate a unit, you would have to have 3 stations be time-synchronized and all would have to know they heard the same signal -- which is undoubtedly coded making it EASIER to know it was the same.

              In other words, tank A sends out an encrypted digital message of "here is my location". If 3 stations hear the signal and timestamp it to the nanosecond, they can them compare the signal--without knowing what it actually broadcast--and tell it was the same broadcast. Using the time data and and the exact location of each station, it's a simple matter to plot the location of the transmission. The farther apart the 3 stations, the better the accuracy. More stations would lead to more accuracy, plus you'd couldn't shut it down by bombing a single tower as long as 3 remained.

              This would essentially be a reverse-gps. It's only resource-intensive and slow if you have a single unit driving around with a directional antenna, like the FCC did to locate pirate stations. If you can synchronize the clocks and timestamp signals accurately, it's almost trivial to pinpoint the location.

    • Re:Risky (Score:5, Insightful)

      by f97tosc (578893) on Friday April 18 2003, @05:23PM (#5762437)
      Isn't it a little risky to put location transponders on all your military units? If the enemy cracks your transponder codes, they can easily target you.

      Similar concerns can be raised about almost any military technology or activity. Don't use radio - the enemy might hear what you say! Don't use radar - the enemy will know where you are! Don't open fire - you will reveal your position!

      Military winners are willing to take such risks in pursuing their objectives. They know that being aware of the situation and acting proactivly and agressively is more important than never revealing anything to the enemy. There are of course circumstances where one should be stealthy, but wars are not won by armies remaining completely hidden in cover.

      Tor
    • No more than anything else they do. You'll note it said "transponders" not "transmitters". These things generally only speak when spoken too (by a properly authenticated signal).

      I know "military intelligence" is an oxymoron, but give them credit for a tiny amount of common sense.

    • Re:Risky (Score:4, Funny)

      by NanoGator (522640) on Friday April 18 2003, @06:45PM (#5762791) Homepage Journal
      "Isn't it a little risky to put location transponders on all your military units? If the enemy cracks your transponder codes, they can easily target you. "

      Suddenly a fleet of vehicles simultaneously comes to a complete stop. "An update to your GPS software is available. Would you like to download it now?"
  • While I know that even in our hi-tech armed forces, shovels still play a key role, I was under the impression that cigarettes no longer were considered as acceptable as in the past. That they don't call out "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" anymore.
    • That they don't call out "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" anymore.

      Actually, they do. I've taken smoke breaks in the middle of MILES firefights (while in good cover, of course), and after having my hip crushed in a training accident the first thing I asked the medic for (and got) was a smoke.

      I think you may find smoking is more common/acceptable in combat units than in REMFs. I don't know for sure about that, though, since I've been a Cavalry Scout for my whole career.

  • Technological goodness! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I want to adapt this system to graphically display locations of all my girlfriends.

  • Failure rate (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2003, @04:52PM (#5762262)
    Kind of odd when I can 12 channels on my civilian model

    Of course, your civilian model probably fails 1% of the time, and wouldn't survive a day in a sandstorm, in part due to it's fragile electronics.

    The Military version, while only 5 channels, is probably much more robust then your puny little civilian model.
    • we have a 'civ' model of Germen Summit GPS. It has survived over a year of constant abuse in our tool box, and has been dropped off 3 different towers that were over 100' tall. Then we dropped it off our main tower, 500'. The batteries popped out and went somewhere but it still works! Made a big THUD and slight crater in the ground....


      I love working with a wISP, its sooo much cooler than boring old regular ISP work...!

        • Re:Failure rate (Score:4, Informative)

          by bugnuts (94678) on Friday April 18 2003, @06:50PM (#5762806) Journal
          I have used both military and civ models.

          Civilian models are designed to be lightweight, waterproof, and reasonably accurate. Some will average selective availability to get a statistically more accurate reading. A 12-channel chip is the size of a dime. The newer ones with integrated map data are excellent.

          Military models have decryption software (basically a 3DES chip, I believe) which can listen to the encrypted channels broadcast by the birds but from what I understand, the MAIN DIFFERENCE is that military models have a more accurate clock than the civilian models. Because of this, even with SA disabled, they get triple the accuracy with 7 fewer channels.

  • Link it to a running Battlefield 1942 sim (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blair1q (305137) on Friday April 18 2003, @04:54PM (#5762279) Journal
    Link it to a 3-D sim, and you can "play" the war in real-time.

    Add a joystick and some electric "prods" in the soldiers' uniforms, and you can literally play the war.

    --Ender
  • used to target the friendlies that it is supposed to protect?

  • Mil spec (Score:5, Insightful)

    by isomeme (177414) <cberry@cine.net> on Friday April 18 2003, @05:03PM (#5762338) Homepage Journal
    Kind of odd when I can 12 channels on my civilian model (with admittedly lower spatial accuracy).
    I'd also imagine that yours would be unlikely to continue working if, say, dropped onto concrete from fifteen feet up, or if a bomb went off ten yards away from it, or if it took a glancing impact from a bullet. Say what you like about US military gear, the stuff is amazingly rugged. Ten year old tech that keeps working under battlefield conditions is far more valuable to a soldier than bleeding-edge tech that quits if it gets damp.
    • This is probably the most important reason for military grade equipment. Much like some of the newer guns in WWII, the infantry would take the axis guns because their's would always jam.
  • " Sebastian Ross remembered their "Field Tests." In the ERTS parking lot, technicians would throw new equipment against the wall, kick it across the concrete, and leave it in a bucket of muddy water overnight. Anything found working the next day was certified as field worthy.
    -Michael Crichton, Congo"

    Wanna bet that the army does the same thing to their equipment? Id rather have a 10 year old kludge that cant be killed than an new shiny untested watch sized piece of crap.

  • I have a question... (Score:3, Funny)

    by SirDaShadow (603846) on Friday April 18 2003, @05:21PM (#5762423)
    ...are the good guys in blue and the bad guys in red? ;)
  • The advantages of this type of system go above and beyond actual battlefield situational awareness -- this type of system dramatically improves the ability of the forces to train for battle too.

    I'd always wondered how exactly the military "war games" ... I imagine in the old days it was a lot more macro-level simulations ("Sir, our forces our meeting resistance in the North, what would you like to do?").

    With a system like this, commanders are able to train on the same hardware and UI as they would in a re

  • Poor or incomplete research (Score:5, Informative)

    by MmmmAqua (613624) on Friday April 18 2003, @05:25PM (#5762450)
    From the article:
    The new system will also track all 12 G.P.S. satellites in each hemisphere at once. The old units can only track five satellites at once, and signals from four satellites are required to establish a three-dimensional position. In addition, current G.P.S. receivers are somewhat vulnerable to enemy equipment that beams false G.P.S. signals to indicate the wrong location, a technique known as spoofing.

    Here's the thing: the article is correct about the PLGR needing four locked satellites to establish a three-dimensional position. However, a PLGR can also establish a two-dimensional position with two locked signals and one intermittent one. The important part here is that the PLGR's most common use (determining position for individual soldiers and vehicles) doesn't need a 3D position. Your position (including elevation) can be plotted on any map using only two coordinates. 3D positions are only important for aircraft, air defense, and artillery. And for the most part, those guys aren't using PLGRs. Oh, and PLGRs can track up to 10 satellites.

    This corrective post brought to you by a US Army Cavalry Scout. (None of this information, by the way, is classified or restricted. The reporter just didn't check sources very well.)

  • military and gps (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2003, @05:29PM (#5762462)
    Just recently I had to give a presentation on Garmin, a GPS manufacturer. I mentioned that they don't really make military grade GPS's. But an individual in the class, who was in the military, said that many officers actually carry civilian GPS's in addition to the military ones. They're less accurate, but they're much faster than many of the military grade ones.
  • If you have a Motorola i88s [amazon.com]and download a midlet [gadgeteer.org] I wrote you can track your cell phone and have it's position update a web page in real time. You can also mark an interesting location to see where it is on a map or aerial photo later. This is possible thanks to Nextel's always on internet connection [nextel.com] for $9.99 for 1 Meg per month. Of course if the enemy has web access this wouldn't be too good

  • Your really this niave? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tailhook (98486) on Friday April 18 2003, @05:39PM (#5762489)
    While some units have rather modern system that can graphically display locations of other troops, others rely on 10-year-old 5 channel receivers. Kind of odd when I can 12 channels on my civilian model (with admittedly lower spatial accuracy).

    The fact that some units are using a "10-year-old 5 channel receiver" does not surprise or concern me in the least. The military has prerogatives other than "latest and greatest nifty stuff" when procuring equipment.

    Those old units probably contain custom hardware to cope with un-obfuscating GPS signals for back when the signal was still (and could again) being obfuscated. Those devices survive generation after generation of soldiers who are expected to use the things in all combat environments. In other words, this is not some plastic Taiwanese el-cheapo GPS receiver you paid $300 for at wiggliesneatshit.com. Do you have any clue how much time and money it takes to build one-off mil-spec equipment in low volumes that the military routinely requires?

    I've actually found detailed technical information about the unit you're talking about. It's here [fas.org] and it's a damned interesting read. For instance, does your spiffy little 12 channel unit happen to have any anti-jamming/spoofing features? Exactly how many artillery shell concussion shock waves will your unit survive while your crew is firing the ol' 155mm? The DoD is so happy with the things they are trying to extend the warranty!

    The fact that some units have more modern equipment than others is a perfectly normal, healthy way to run a military. Some of you paying attention to our recent deployment to Iraq have learned that the Army's 4th Infantry Division has only just now arrived in theater. This happens to be the Army's "showcase" Division. If it's the latest, the 4th ID has got it. It's not that our government didn't want to deploy the 4th, but Turkey didn't cooperate and the whole outfit had to be floated around the Mediterranean. Basically, the most advanced ground force on Earth arrived just in time to become traffic cops. Meanwhile, the old fashioned 10-year-old PLGR units are probably exactly what the 3rd ID used to actually get the job done.

    You show me someone astonished by military procurement practices and I'll show you an ignorant fool. The next time you have the urge to compare your knowledge of equipment/technology to that of a military, just assume your wrong and shut up.
  • Here are two screenshots (reg req?) of FBCB2 [nytimes.com], a battlefield force-viewing program.

    Can someone tell me what OS it's running on?

    Plainly FBCB2 is using X11 windows to draw the display. But the open "Start" menu in the lower-left strongly resembles Microsoft Windows(tm), except for the replacement of the "Flying Window" logo with a yellowish blob.

    It seems excessively fragile to be running two boxes for the software and it's display- could it be that FBCB2 is a Unix program, but the Army has adapted a Micros
    • the WM looks like FVWM95??
    • Can someone tell me what OS it's running on?

      Looks like it runs on many different systems. Given that it is platform agnostic, the GUI likely is a motif app and what you see is a X server running on winblows. Look here [fas.org].

    • My guess is that it's an X11 Unix application being displayed on a windows box running Exceed to make it into a virtual X terminal.

      (Yes Virginia, the dumb terminal is alive and well.)

      Said configuration is so common it's almost obscene. My first Job out of college was at one of Lockheed Martin's many branches. All of the REAL work was done on various flavours of Unix (AIX, HP-UX and some other IBM OS in our case, and some projects in the facility were expreimenting with Linux and BSD as alternatives (Mai
      • So I've little doubt that it's pretty common in the actual military as well.

        I doubt it strongly. If you worked for a defense contractor long, you know there is a HUGE difference between the equipment used in stateside research labs and what is deployable in the field.

        Software thats going to be run in actual military combat should always be compact, embedded systems code. We all know the story of the battleship running Windows NT, which only demonstrates why this is a bad idea- and the military is usual
    • So, what kind of GPS was that maintenance company using when they got lost and captured by the Iraqis?

      Read the article. It says (and my experience has been [you should see REMFs ogle PLGRs - hell, they get excited when they see guys get out of a slick {gunship Humvee} wearing LBVs {gear vests}]) that non-combat units don't commonly have GPS equipment.
    • Plus the old ones [fas.org] have such a crappy user interface that you accidentally drop bombs on your own troops. Apparently, its a 14 step process to replace the battery, and in the confusion of battle mistakes are made. The same display for "current" location is used for "target" location, and in Afghanistan they dropped some on themselves.

      Okay, let me dispel several fallacies here. First, the user interface, like any other, is only crappy if you don't learn how to use the device. Once you know how

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.