Article

2008-03-10 Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-03-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 Who cares? I like it when trusted allies (UK, Canada, Japan, Australia) bring something to the table. Salutes to them all and sundry.

Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical 2008-03-10 00:50|| 2008-03-10 00:50|| Front Page Top

#2 Someone explain to me why the Kandahar crew can't manage the whole mission. Yes, you can have the crew 7,000 miles away, but if they can be close by, why not?

Perhaps the decision to drop the bomb on the target is still made by a General watching over the operator's shoulder? If so, it was probably easier to persuade the General to set up operations in Las Vegas over Kandahar any day of the week! :-)

Just my guess.

Posted by gorb 2008-03-10 02:15|| 2008-03-10 02:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Someone explain to me why the Kandahar crew can't manage the whole mission. Yes, you can have the crew 7,000 miles away, but if they can be close by, why not?

I'm curious about time delay in signaling halfway around the world, I doubt humans would notice it, but computers would.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2008-03-10 02:49|| 2008-03-10 02:49|| Front Page Top

#4 OTOH, BRUSSELS JOURNAL [paraph] WILL THE BRITONS ATTACK THE USA?

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-03-10 02:56|| 2008-03-10 02:56|| Front Page Top

#5 No, silly JM, the Britons will do no such thing.

The PROBLEM is all of these Islamists which they import and cuddle. THEY are a problem... and that's what I think the article in Brussels Journal is getting at.

However- this was the bit that stood out for me:
Notably, last year the Bush administration announced that Britain was no longer its top ally, and that this spot had been taken by Germany and France.

NOT GOOD. Bush needs to get smashed on this point. I fully admit to being a Germanophile (Barvarian GF.) But the 'special relationship' must NEVER be sacrificed.

IMHO.

Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical 2008-03-10 04:17|| 2008-03-10 04:17|| Front Page Top

#6 My interpretation is that the Special Relationship has been put on hold until Komrade Gordsky gets booted out by the proletariat, or at very least gets a popular mandate. Presently, he is only in at the behest of the Politburo.

IMO the frostiness has come from our side. GWB cant be blamed in light of the cordial relations he has had with Tony Blair all these years.

Ironic though, isnt it that Democrats, esp. Obama-ites push their platform for change on the basis that Bush has tarnished the image of the US, considering that Bush-ites Merkel in Germany & Sarkozy in France have both been voted in during his presidency. Today, Zapatero's minority has been diminished and as I mentioned before, Gordon Brown does not yet have a popular mandate.

Iberia, oft thy crestless peasantry
Have seen the plumed Hidalgo quit their side,
Have seen, yet dauntless stood, gainst fortune fought & died.

Posted by Oscar Shins5027 2008-03-10 06:28|| 2008-03-10 06:28|| Front Page Top

#7 Steve, the Reaper is the follow-on to the Predator. A lot of work has gone into revamping the flight control setup on the ground, work that is still continuing. The ground side of UAVs - especially those offensively armed - is as complex or more complex than the air systems themselves. Not something you just plop down in Kandahar, at least not at present.

One of the debates that continue to swirl WRT UAVs has to do with the pilot and support flight team interface. I've heard very senior RAF pilots who flew the Predator talk about taking months to really adjust kinesthetically and pre-consciously to the flight characteristics of that airframe. Pilots depend a good deal on whole-body sensory inputs in combat situations and it's not trivial to identify and replicate the elements of that experience for UAV pilots. Creech AFB has a) a complex setup for this purpose and b) support facilities for the crews.

Posted by lotp 2008-03-10 07:56|| 2008-03-10 07:56|| Front Page Top

#8 I've heard very senior RAF pilots who flew the Predator talk about taking months to really adjust kinesthetically and pre-consciously to the flight characteristics of that airframe

I wonder what'd happen if you just took a kid who's good at video games?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-03-10 08:08|| 2008-03-10 08:08|| Front Page Top

#9 It's been done. They've fine for some kinds of recon work, but not so fine in simulated combat situations or for offensive attack or in avoiding attackers.

Posted by lotp 2008-03-10 08:10|| 2008-03-10 08:10|| Front Page Top

#10 Someone explain to me why the Kandahar crew can't manage the whole mission. Yes, you can have the crew 7,000 miles away, but if they can be close by, why not?

Because the lawyers won't go to Kandahar...

Posted by Excalibur 2008-03-10 08:21|| 2008-03-10 08:21|| Front Page Top

#11 I think it takes 2 satellite links to go to Las Vegas while only one link local or even to England. So yeah, ship the pilot/sensor operator to where it uses less comm satellite resources.

lawyers won't go to Kandahar
No golf courses.

Posted by ed 2008-03-10 09:47|| 2008-03-10 09:47|| Front Page Top

#12 Why Nevada? Just a guess, but could they be afraid by having the RAF ground crew control they might accidently explode some of our spec ops on the ground -- thinking they were taliban? Maybe there's things happening that we don't even want to let the Brits know?

Posted by Captain Lewis 2008-03-10 10:09|| 2008-03-10 10:09|| Front Page Top

#13 Did it ever occur to y'all that there might be a lot of ... things ... associated with the ground control system that we don't WANT to locate outside of CONUS?

Like other systems besides the UAV control that do ... stuff ... with the sensor data that streams back from those platforms.

Like operators whose status as offensive weapons operators is maybe uncertain under international law. Maybe. Or maybe not.

Like equipment we'd really like not to have blown up on account of it's very expensive and undergoing constant evolution and testing.

Like ....

shakes head at armchair generalling done from the safety of one's PC

Posted by lotp 2008-03-10 10:14|| 2008-03-10 10:14|| Front Page Top

#14 Why Nevada?

What happens in 'vada stays in 'vada.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-03-10 10:18|| 2008-03-10 10:18|| Front Page Top

#15 And yes, in general, to the comment about other operations going on.

These UAVs are shared assets, not tactical weapons. There are huge issues regarding tactical UAV use, including airspace control and data sharing. There are also turf issues between USAF and Army re: tactical UAV control as Future Combat Systems start being deployed.

But in the case of the Reaper, the reasons for operating out of NV are based on the whole concept of operations for these systems, which are first and foremost shared operational assets that serve multiple purposes beyond bombing the Taliban.

Posted by lotp 2008-03-10 10:20|| 2008-03-10 10:20|| Front Page Top

#16 And finally, it's just a whole lot cheaper to deploy people in CONUS than in Expensistan. And the service tech aren't nearly as reticent to service beta units.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-03-10 10:24|| 2008-03-10 10:24|| Front Page Top

#17 The Strategic Keyboard Command!

/I approve, I approve. Go get 'em!

Posted by Seafarious 2008-03-10 10:52|| 2008-03-10 10:52|| Front Page Top

#18 The geeks who make this stuff work are at Nellis AFB and other nearby facilities. They are too valuable to send to any of the stans...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2008-03-10 10:59|| 2008-03-10 10:59|| Front Page Top

#19 Plus, the strippers keep the Z monster away during long night flights.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-03-10 11:08|| 2008-03-10 11:08|| Front Page Top

#20 Posted by: Redneck Jim
#3 Someone explain to me why the Kandahar crew can't manage the whole mission. Yes, you can have the crew 7,000 miles away, but if they can be close by, why not?

I'm curious about time delay in signaling halfway around the world, I doubt humans would notice it, but computers would.

Jim, the time delay is very short, infact if you've had conversations with SUPPORT folks in India and/or Sri lanka the delay is so short that it's almost like a normal conversation.

Not like those Vietnam era 1960s, delays 1/2 around the world when we used one-way comm lines/connections, ["over"]. Ship to Shore type stuff. Old patriot or Old Spook will know more of the tech details.

Excalibur:
Because the lawyers won't go to Kandahar..*BINGO*

lotp #15 *BINGO*

Posted by RD">RD 2008-03-10 11:26|| 2008-03-10 11:26|| Front Page Top

#21 RJ: I doubt humans would notice it, but computers would.

PIMF and reading the whole comment is my friend.
:( poop list

Posted by RD">RD 2008-03-10 11:28|| 2008-03-10 11:28|| Front Page Top

#22 I'm more curious about this guided bomb business. The Predator/Raptor has a cruising speed of under 150 mph. Is that enough to get much of a targeting radius out of a gravity bomb, no matter how many fins and wings you slap on that sucker?

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2008-03-10 12:28|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2008-03-10 12:28|| Front Page Top

#23 Ok...

We've had reconnaissance drones since at LEAST the mid-1960's. The ones we used in Vietnam were modified Firebee target drones, launched from C-130 aircraft and caught in midair. They took standard reconnaissance imagery on photographic film. Most of their flight paths were pre-programmed. Technology has changed DRASTICALLY since then.

Modern drones use a variety of sensors, ranging from a simple television camera to some very sophisticated stuff that's VERY classified. They're controlled out of Nevada because that's where the major downlink for the information is. Creech, by the way, is what used to be called "Area 51". Most of the raw data downlinked is unintelligible until it goes through a processor. Those processors are big, expensive, and require tons of air conditioning and a steady supply of uninterrupted electrical power. That's not a sure thing in the 'stans.

Most of the UAVs the US flies are being controlled by airmen, not officers, which has caused quite a stir among the US Air Force officer corps. Most of the interpretation is being done at Stateside locations, protecting those doing this vital work from the threat of capture or kidnapping. As a photo interpreter, I had a $25,000 bounty on my head from the minute I stepped off the airplane in Vietnam. I'm sure the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would just love to kidnap a couple of our intel troops and wring them dry - NOT using "acceptable forms of interrogation" approved by the liberal left loonies.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-03-10 13:17|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-03-10 13:17|| Front Page Top

#24 Delays: If there's a basic generic satcom link in the loop the round trip propagation delay to geostationary orbit is about 1/4 sec. If the link is through landline (fiber, copper, microwave) most of the way and only a local line of sight RF link to the platform, the propagation delay is much less.

Posted by Flainter Wittlesbach6174 2008-03-10 14:46|| 2008-03-10 14:46|| Front Page Top

#25 Creech, by the way, is what used to be called "Area 51". Uh, no. It is what used to be called Indian Springs. A small airfield that is an adjunct to Nellis. It is right along a state highway. No super-secret access like Area 51.

Posted by Remoteman 2008-03-10 15:18|| 2008-03-10 15:18|| Front Page Top

#26 Creech, by the way, is what used to be called "Area 51". Uh, no. It is what used to be called Indian Springs. A small airfield that is an adjunct to Nellis. It is right along a state highway. No super-secret access like Area 51.

Posted by Remoteman 2008-03-10 15:23|| 2008-03-10 15:23|| Front Page Top

#27 Lag is not substantial unless you are playing Halo. :-)

Why Nevada? Well, the classified and highly technical control areas are pretty safe there compared to Kandahar, in terms of pilfering, maint, and being in mortar range. Not to mention the intel dissemination systems needed to confirm targeting: SCIFs are easier to set up and operate in a fixed base, stateside than they are in a temp/mobile system.

And here is one factor that you might not have considered:

Its harder for the SIGINT gatherers of our technologically advanced opponents (Russians, Chinese) to overfly and signal sniff the uplinks and downlinks with sensitive EW gear, etc, when they are in Nevada inside Tonopah or someplace like that, compared to Kandahar.

(And thats probably the consideration, along with the SCIF, thats keeping those Nevada).

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-10 15:46|| 2008-03-10 15:46|| Front Page Top

#28 Lotp, my concern with multiple satellite hops is due to mthe limitied bandwidth and limited numbers of comm satellites. That severly limits the numbers of sat-linked UAV that can be flown worldwide. For instance, for what I could find out, the newer Milstar satllites have a bandwidth of 85Mbits/sec, and no link operates at 100 capacity. Video alone will take 6MHz. Add in Flight controls, status and navigation video and it is 9 or 10Mb/sec (each one way link) or 35-40Mb/sec for the 2 receive and 2 transmit links or fully 1/2 of a $200M satellite to support a $5 million Predator. Where is the intelligence there? Why not move the controllers to Diego Garcia, Bahrain or Italy and double the usable satellite and therefore Predator capacity?

Newer comm satellites will alleviate some of the bandwidth crunch. For example Wideband Gap Filler can route 10-20X as much as the DSCS-3 and the first was supposed to launch late last year, so I doubt one is yet operational. But then run something like Global Hawk with it's SAR radr and multispectral imagers and the DoD is back in the same boat.

As for support, almost all the support is software updates, the easiest kind to support remotely. Also, there are hundreds of aircraft deployed and supported overseas that are much more complex than a Predator control station.

Posted by ed 2008-03-10 16:13|| 2008-03-10 16:13|| Front Page Top

#29 FAS.org says "The (DSCS-II) total usable bandwidth is 375 MHz." That implies a digital bandwidth of 187.5Mb/sec or twice the 85Mb/sec I used above or $50M of satellite to support a $5M Predator.

Posted by ed 2008-03-10 16:24|| 2008-03-10 16:24|| Front Page Top

#30 Ed, others: your knowledge concerning comm bandwidth is not complete. Nor is FAS'.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-10 17:29|| 2008-03-10 17:29|| Front Page Top

#31 Oldspook, the WideBand Gap Filler sat is really the Boeing 702 under the hood. According to Boeings website "Each WGS can route 2.1 to 3.6 Gbps of data -- providing more than 10 times the communications capacity of the predecessor DSCS III satellite." Nothing I have said contradicts this. DoD does not have magic wand and in most cases vastly outperformed by commercial equivalents.

Posted by ed 2008-03-10 18:25|| 2008-03-10 18:25|| Front Page Top

#32 Maybe they're buying commercial and most of the heavy bandwidth TV comms stuff is encrypted over that, saving the dot mil bandwidth for the classified stuff.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-03-10 18:54|| 2008-03-10 18:54|| Front Page Top

#33 Mitch #22, the Reaper flies faster and higher than the Predator - approximately twice on both measures.

The 'bombs' it carries are JDAMs. Or, alternately, laser guided bombs - but the 500 lb munitions mentioned in the story are JDAMs.

Posted by lotp 2008-03-10 19:28|| 2008-03-10 19:28|| Front Page Top

#34 It's been done. They've fine for some kinds of recon work, but not so fine in simulated combat situations or for offensive attack or in avoiding attackers.

Let me guess, they don't have enough situational awareness?

Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2008-03-10 19:37|| 2008-03-10 19:37|| Front Page Top

#35 ed - re: bandwidth associated with remotely controlling the Reaper, Old Spook is correct in the points he makes.

You also neglect the possibility of on-platform processing of sensor data before downlinking. As well as other technologies.

It's not like these issues weren't identified and addressed a good while ago by the people actually involved. ;-)

Posted by lotp 2008-03-10 19:37|| 2008-03-10 19:37|| Front Page Top

#36 Actually I was thinking of something template matching and sending the delta. That way it doesn't lose detail like lossy compression (where ya takes your chances on not spotting a target). The problem with that (unlike MPEG) is that bandwidth is not predictable and I don't know enough about how comm satellites dynamically allocate (if at all) fractional transponder use.

So while I expect some kind of compression, it may not match well with the comm channel.

Posted by ed 2008-03-10 19:46|| 2008-03-10 19:46|| Front Page Top

#37 http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/03/ukraninan-milit.html#comments

maybe we should drop some of these woohoo - definitely distract the enemy

Posted by legolas 2008-03-10 20:33|| 2008-03-10 20:33|| Front Page Top

#38 Better than dropping a couple pints.

Posted by Icerigger 2008-03-10 23:23|| http://coonlakebeach.com/news.htm]">[http://coonlakebeach.com/news.htm] 2008-03-10 23:23|| Front Page Top

#39 STRATEGYPAGE > PROCUREMENT?: WAITING ON THE B-3; + TOPIX/NEWS.AU > AUSTRALIA'S SILENT EMPIRE.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-03-10 23:46|| 2008-03-10 23:46|| Front Page Top

23:55 Jan
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:42 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:33 3dc
23:23 Icerigger
23:17 Rambler in California
23:10 bigjim-ky
22:38 ed
22:30 bigjim-ky
22:25 Huport Bourbon3420
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:06 JosephMendiola
21:58 ed
21:57 JosephMendiola
21:48 RD
21:45 RD
21:44 RD
21:43 JosephMendiola
21:40 JosephMendiola
21:38 Sherry
21:35 RD
21:32 Flaimble Sforza3265
21:31 ed