Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Hardware

Military Tech: GPS and Networking 185

Posted by michael from the lost-in-the-desert dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Military Tech: GPS and Networking More

Military Tech: GPS and Networking

Comments Filter:

  • 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.
      • Technically, GPS only tells you where you are. If you choose to store your home base/camp site/vehicle location in your little nifty receiver, then sure...it keeps you from getting lost.

      • Wait a minute, they are in the military, on a march across the desert. (or they were, in theory they are now getting ready for the march back...) Knowing where my company was when I left it isn't much help if the company is on the move. If I'm not expect to be away they will search for me, but if my orders are "Go 3 miles off track to x, do y, and then meet up with us latter.", then I need to find not where they are or were but the best way to get where they will be when it is time to meet up.

  • So... (Score:1, Funny)

    by ebatsky ( 582457 )
    Are those generals commanding troops though an X-Box?!
    • Yup, that would be cool if they had a Warcraft/Starcraft like interface where they just selected a unit, indicated the commands (move/attack/patrol/etc), and they get transmitted automatically to them. That would rock. :)
      • "Yup, that would be cool if they had a Warcraft/Starcraft like interface where they just selected a unit, indicated the commands (move/attack/patrol/etc), and they get transmitted automatically to them. That would rock. :) "

        "Tee hee, I'm going to keep walking into this tree so boss has to micro-manage me."
    • yes, I hear they managed to install linux without modding it.

  • 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. =]

    • There's a few HAMs in my general area using APRS now, and we're considering puting a beacon on one of our highways...APRS itself is a nifty technology escpecially for ARES, but I'm not so sure about day-to-day opperations.
      • 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
        • Intresting...My next question is, how is the hardware (if any) different from APRS? One of the biggest reasons why my area is not on APRS is because there is no incentive. The "old men" who are not technically inclined do not want or need to buy the add-ons for their current rig, or do not want to sell their HT for one that has APRS.

          IRLP has been the main focus of our group lately, there are more people intrested in that over APRS, but I'll bring this up at the next meeting because there are a few Linux us
          • 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

            • Re:Obligatory plug... (Score:2, Insightful)

              by pe1chl ( 90186 )
              Are you sure that any of the APRS problems are related to the message format?
              If not, it is very unwise to create a new, incompatible, message format "just because this one is nicer".
              The average ham radio operator considers something like a PIC or a TNC an "investment for life" and will not be prepared to build or construct something new to do essentially the same as what he already has, even if it does it in a better or cleaner way!
              This probably is because many hams are just trying out different things, and
      • APRS is "Fun" for Day to day, and as another poster has said, day to day is when you test your gear

        Now for events and ARES/RACES work, APRS is great. Of course, around here, the events are worked mostly by ARES so....

        73
        KC2IXE

  • 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.
        • Who's to say the military doesn't send out 1500 transmissions when they've only got 225 units? Give them all somewhat random ids and keep the fake units' locations moving. Or better yet, cycle the real and fake ids according to a scheme (ala SecurId)

          Problem solved.
          • You mean, build decoy-drones which broadcast fake signals?

            Because otherwise, the fact that those 1500 transmissions come from exactly 225 bearings will look suspicious. It's much more likely that an enemy would just detect radio signals to pick up where the unit is, rather than attempting unreasonable task of decrypting the actual messages.

            The only way they could realistically eavesdrop on the contents of the transmissions would be if a valid US receieved was captured intact- in which case the SecurId (o
        • Triangulation
          • Triangulation can be effecive, but it's resource intensive and slow.

            For multiple targets, it's just not effective. And when was the last time the U.S. sent out "just a few" units?

            • Yeah, very true. I was just throwing it out...

              neurostar

            • 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: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)
            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.

              • Re:bandwidth? (Score:2, Insightful)

                by joggle ( 594025 )
                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

                • I'm thinking more 5 minutes ago; one process determines the frequencies and send them to another process that demodulates that portion of the signal.
              • Yeah, you can record it, but as one of the posters said, the keys change daily. That was the BIG deal about one of the mid 80s spy cases - the guy was stealing the keys!

            • You can change the frequency 100k times per second, but as long as you're broadcasting, your position can always be detected. You don't need to decode the content, you just need to know their location.
              It's not armies like the Iraqis you need to worry about. It's the Russians and Chinese you need to worry about, their spies already stole our codes.

    • 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?"

    • Re:Risky (Score:2, Informative)

      by Dolphinzilla ( 199489 )
      Most of these things are designed with LPI (low probability of intercept) in mind - they are nearly impossible to detect with even the best equipment - now consider the technology that our opponents have and it comes out to be 0 risk. The benefit of knowing where your forces are, to prevent fratricide, far outweigh the astronomical odds of having your transponder tracked.
    • They don't need to crack any codes. As long as you send out some sort of signal you can be targetted.

      But don't forget the US military is a bigger danger to itself and its allies than any 3rd world army. If I were a tank commander I'd rather risk small arms fire and a few RPGs from Iraqis than trigger-happy Yanks armed to their teeth.

      Sure the enemy can target you, but its better than two US platoons, one A-10, a bunch of A64s, etc blasting you to bits before the enemy even gets close enough to pull the tri
  • 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.
    • Have you seen any of the civilian ones?
      They are quite the rugged pieces of hardware. Most are waterproof and can stand multiple drops.
      While I'm not sure about the accuracy in a sand storm, I doubt the military ones fare much better.
      • Have you seen any of the military models? I believe some plug into a laser designation system and give the coordinates of the illuminated target. Don't assume a big bulky box means old technology, it sometimes means greater capability.

        • 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.
    • 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...!

  • 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?
    • Public Key Infrastructure & Cryptography

      Among a host of other military technologies that are in place to guarantee the authenticity of a user
    • American pilots do a good enough job of providing friendly fire for everyone on the battlefield.

  • Mil spec (Score:5, Insightful)

    by isomeme ( 177414 ) <cdberry@gmail.com> on Friday April 18, 2003 @05:03PM (#5762338) 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.
    • 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.

      You wouldn't believe what we do to test military stuff. I recall the time I went to the test hut where they were subjecting an antenna mount with internal electronics to a vibration test. At the end, they opened the access panel, and this cascade of printed circuit fragments not much larger than your thumb poured forth. I won't bother

  • 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? ;)
    • Not unless everyone has their evil bit [slashdot.org] set correctly.
    • Yes.

      IMPORTANT NOTE: in the RealWorld 1.0 server, friendly fire is set to ON. Unlike some other servers you've played on, friendlies take FULL damage, not half.

      It is NOT acceptable to shoot teammates, even if you don't intend to kill them.

      Last but not least: There's no respawn, no save game, quicksave. There's no walk-through either.

      Yep, it sucks.

  • POW's (Score:1)

    by PD ( 9577 )
    So, what kind of GPS was that maintenance company using when they got lost and captured by the Iraqis?

    I wonder if it was an old unit that broke down. They should have a rule that says three GPS per unit at least. And a good map as backup.
    • 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.
      • non-combat units don't commonly have GPS equipment.

        What? A unit can get equipped with GPS for just $100. If they're non-combat, that's even more reason they can grab civilian gear- it's good enough, and a lot better than nothing.

        Even some SOF troops carry COTS Garmins, as the MILSPECs are just too bulky for what they need to do.
        • Civilian GPSs *are* lighter and (oftentimes) more accurate than the PLGR. I own a Garmin, myself. However, civilian GPS units are more susceptible to jamming, and cannot access the encrypted signal you have to access to get an accurate signal in an area where GPS accuracy has been deliberately degraded.

          You must not have much experience with the military. Most REMFs are more likely to spend $100 on a cooler and a portable barbecue than a GPS. Why? "Because we'll never be in combat, why would we need t

  • War gaming...literally (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nlh ( 80031 )
    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.)

    • Re:Poor or incomplete research (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A few comments:

      1) Four satellites are needed for a 3D position lock because the "fourth unknown" is exact GPS time. Receivers simply set up and solve a system of equations with four variables: x, y, z and "b", the receiver's clock bias. Solving the system of equations is an iterative and approximate process.

      2) Modern receivers will use as many satellites as are "visible" to them at any point in time. More sats means higher accuracy. Each satellite gets weighted based on its elevation - satellites close to
      • GPS jamming does not turn smart bombs dumb, just less smart. JDAM kits have GPS and inertial guidance and in the event of a loss of GPS data the inertial system takes over. The Circular Error Probable (CEP) goes from 13 meteres to 30, but hardly a dumb bomb.

        http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.ht m

  • 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].

      • Given that it is platform agnostic

        Where do you get that?

        The slide says "integrated into the various platforms at brigade and below". But in that context (and in general when discussing military planning), a "platform" is anything which can have a gun put on it (tanks, APCs, helicopters, ships, etc. Even people)

        Is there any other source suggesting it's cross-platform in a software sense?
        • link [tio-armytr...mation.net]

          "FBCB2 software - which is architecturally compliant with the Defense Information Infrastructure Common Operating Environment"

          Whether it's been implemented on >1 OS I dunno. But it's designed to be.
    • 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
        • > you know there is a HUGE difference between the
          > equipment used in stateside research labs and what is
          > deployable in the field.

          > even Unix is normally considered too newflangled and
          > unpredictable to run in "the field".

          Point taken, and correct. I guess I should clairfy that by "the field", I didn't mean combat. The project I worked on was development of automated test and diagnostic equipment that was mostly the business of the REMFs. Our stuff didn't go into combat. If the fancy toy
        • > you know there is a HUGE difference between the
          > equipment used in stateside research labs and what is
          > deployable in the field.

          > even Unix is normally considered too newflangled and
          > unpredictable to run in "the field".

          Point tak en, and correct. I guess I should clairfy that by "the field", I didn't mean combat. The project I worked on was development of automated test and diagnostic equipment that was mostly the business of the REMFs. Our stuff didn't go into combat. If the fancy to
    • That demo was run off of a civilian machine accessing only unclassified material. The person running the demo probably didn't have any better clearance than an MP.

      He was running WinNT and even had an instance of Winamp running.

      Don't be foolish enough to believe the DoD would actually use Microsoft products for any of it's software needs.
      • You don't think the DOD uses Windows for class system?

        Wow. Let me just tell you one thing, The sys admin I know that work for the DOD only know MS.

        BYW, on NIPERNET (the normal unclass internet) winodws 2000 active directory is prohibited. All the servers are NT with exchange 5.5
    • FBCB2 runs under Solaris on a Pentium PC.

      Sorry about not formatting this link.

      http://www.shai.com/papers/IITSEC-02-FBCB2.pdf

      Interestingly enough, the Army's most powerful tanks, the M1A2, don't run FBCB2, they run the older and incompatible system which I believe is called IFIS. The 3rd Division in Iraq had M1A2s with IFIS and the recently deployed 4th is outfitted with FBCB2. The 4th is considered the Army's most "wired" division.

      • Hmm, I didn't spend much time at Stottler Henke's booth at IITSEC (although they passed out a great little invitation card, featuring an infantryman with an RS-232 port out the side of his neck).

        Slashdot readers might like to know that the primary platform for the OTB [onesaf.org] software referenced in that paper is Linux. (In fact, at one point the recommended distribution was Progeny Debian).

        The really amusing thing about Stottler Henke [shai.com] is that although their main customer focus is on the US DoD, they've also rele
    • Red Hat.

      I worked with a system simiar to this.

      They also have other ones for windows that use Red Hat's CYGIN (sp?)
  • We used to buy our own regulators (for diving), because they were better than the ones the Army had for us. Likewise, we bought our own civilian sleeping bags, arctic underwear, boots, socks, calculators, etc. etc. Don't get me wrong, most military gear was, at the very least, overbuilt and dependable.

    Man Gets 70mpg in Homemade Car-Made from a Mainframe Computer [xnewswire.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close