Meet the Men Who Deploy Airstrikes 311
Lanxon writes "Wired followed US Army Staff Sergeant Kevin Rosner into Afghanistan to see first-hand the tools, tactics, and pressures involved in coordinating military airstrikes. This lengthy piece explores the people and technology involved in high-risk airborne warfare, from their perspective. From the article: 'Strapped to his chest, Rosner carries a handheld video player called a "Rover," built by L3 Communications, a New York-based defense contractor. The device, the size and shape of a PSP game console and costing tens of thousands of dollars, reads signals transmitted by the camera pods strapped to the underside of all NATO fighter aircraft. With his Rover, Rosner can see everything a pilot sees, from the pilot's perspective. On his back he carries a radio programmed with secure frequencies that tie him directly to the pilots overhead and to his unit's headquarters, several miles away. At the headquarters, another JTAC monitors a bigger, more sophisticated video terminal that displays the same video Rosner sees, plus other data.'"
U.S. Air Force Sergeant, Not U.S. Army (Score:2, Informative)
From TFA, Staff Sergeant Kevin Rosner is in the U.S. Air Force, not the U.S. Army.
Rosner's Neat Trick (Score:3, Informative)
Hello, Pedantic Man here...
reads signals transmitted by the camera pods strapped to the underside of all NATO fighter aircraft. With his Rover, Rosner can see everything a pilot sees, from the pilot's perspective
emphasis mine
Um... no, not quite the pilot's perspective. (Arguably, it's actually a better picture of the terrain beneath the nose of the aircraft than the pilot sees. But it's not the pilot's perspective- at least, I hope not!)
Re:Rosner's Neat Trick (Score:4, Informative)
If the pilot has access to the same video in the cockpit, then they both see the same thing on their respective screens. So he would in fact, see what the pilot sees. It is just that the scope of what is seen is narrow and ambiguous in the summary.
Re:Oh (Score:5, Informative)
I would argue with that; you have to remember that there were oil men from Texas in the White House.
My point being that the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with lowering the price of energy, which would have been good for ALL of the American people; rather, it had to do with enabling a few people to increase their rate of wealth accumulation. Consider: The former objective is Democratic; the latter, Republican.
Re:'secure frequencies' (Score:2, Informative)
In this case, "secure" means encrypted. Unless there are special super-secret parts of the EMS that no-one knows about?
Have Quick [wikipedia.org] is the channel jumping tech you were hoping for :)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
There's a lot to like about this post, even though you are getting modded into oblivion, but I do want to point out the other side of _this_ coin:
The US and Great Britain spent a ton of money and intellectual power _developing_ those resources in the shit-hole backwards nations that had them. After _WE_ did the _real_ work (the thinking), and developed the resources, and turned it into an ever-producing gravy train, THEN the knuckle-dragging locals start getting very upset about their "soverign rights". But they don't "soverignly" tear the pumping rigs and derricks and everything else down, do they?
Of course not.
When Venezuela decided to "nationalize" big portions of their oil industry they signed their death sentence. Nobody is going to invest in that rotten place any longer.
Now, I think there is a perfectly good case to be made that the US government shouldn't be throwing around its weight to "support" the private/corporate interests that were doing foreign resource development and had their assets stolen by foreign governments. I think if I were running the US I'd say "if you like our laws and the protections they give, do your resource investing _here_, or hire your own army to protect your activities outside of US soil".
I think there was a point in the history of the UK where the British Navy was doing it... "about right". In terms of, keeping ports and trade open for British interests, but not having boots on the ground in foreign lands. Obviously they got overzealous and collapsed.
We're, as you point out, on the same trajectory.
I think this is only problematic in an argumentative sense, and your choice of words is meant more to emote than to inform. Dominant cultures arise because they socio-politically reward good ideas. Cultures that do not adopt better ideas as quickly will tend to lose out.
If there _must_ be conflict, I'm OK with the stack-ranking described above.
Re:U.S. Air Force Sergeant, Not U.S. Army (Score:5, Informative)
How good do you have to be to shoot down rusty Soviet cast-offs and bomb weddings? The US air-force is probably the safest job in military history.
It's safe because we are that good. Let me give you a little perspective on what it takes to get into a fighter cockpit these days. I'll keep it simple and give you my own personal story of getting there. My ROTC class started with 80. Of that, only 15 graduated and became officers in the Air Force (19%). Of those 15, 4 of us received pilot slots (26%). At initial flight screening, 16/20 graduated and were able to go to Undergraduate Pilot Training (80%). At pilot training, 11/14 students in my flight made it through primary training (79%). 1 of those 11, me, was selected for T-38s (Fighter/Bomber track) (9%). And in my T-38 class of 6 people, we might see 2 fighters (more likely 1) (17%).
So through my own personal path, 5/1000 people who try, will make it into a fighter cockpit.
That's how good you have to be.
He's in the Air Force, not the Army (Score:1, Informative)
The submitter didn't read the article too well. TAC-P is linked with an Army group when they deploy but are still part of the USAF. He's even wearing ABUs in the picture. You will see AF CCT, TAC-P, etc. wear ACUs but i've never seen an Army person wear ABUs when they're with an AF group.
Re:Oh (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I believe it; however, I'll pass on the title of "idiot". I would observe that the derogatory nature of your introduction of Al Gore into the conversation rather defines your position on the subject of environmental responsibility. No doubt you fall among those who believe that mankind is incapable of altering the world "because it is too big to affect", and so however man uses it or whatever man pumps into it is no big deal?
While I cannot say that this is true of you, I have found that people who have such beliefs have often never been outside of their niche in the U.S. of A. Curiously, I have also found that people who hold that "too big to affect" belief often tend to pee in other people's swimming pools.
Re:U.S. Air Force Sergeant, Not U.S. Army (Score:3, Informative)
If you're going to argue uninformed points of view, I suggest arguing them with someone who hasn't spent the better part of the last year studying airpower. :)
The Army is incapable of establishing air superiority; their aviation assets consist entirely of cargo, recon, and rotary-wing aircraft. While the Navy and Marines operate fighter-type aircraft, the Marines focus more on close air support of Marine units, and the Navy focuses more on fleet defense. (The Navy has the capability of performing SEAD missions, but it's not one of their primary functions.)
By the way, I take it you've never heard of USAF Combat Controllers? The guys who go behind enemy lines and set up airfields?
Re:"Secure" frequencies? (Score:1, Informative)
Unless you know... the whizbang switch isn't turned on, in which case the off the shelf "modern radar detector" can watch the whole show.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/intercepting_pr.html
"The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Iraqi, and possibly also Afghan, militants are using commercial software to eavesdrop on U.S. Predators, other unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, and even piloted planes. The systems weren't "hacked" -- the insurgents can’t control them -- but because the downlink is unencrypted, they can watch the same video stream as the coalition troops on the ground."
Modern military crypto hardware might be fantastic but it's less so if all of it isn't turned on. As per usual, the human factor is the weak link. The policy design, or the consistent adherence to policy, or the not willing to live with something as burdensome as key distribution.
Re:Oh (Score:3, Informative)