Re: [iwar] [fc:Net-Centric.Ops,.UAVs.Reshape.Battlefields.And.Boardrooms]

From: e.r. (fastflyer28@yahoo.com)
Date: 2002-07-28 09:27:53


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-5071-1027873674-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3730 invoked by uid 510); 28 Jul 2002 16:26:54 -0000
Received: from n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.70) by all.net with SMTP; 28 Jul 2002 16:26:54 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-5071-1027873674-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.199] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Jul 2002 16:27:54 -0000
X-Sender: fastflyer28@yahoo.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 28 Jul 2002 16:27:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 2208 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2002 16:27:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jul 2002 16:27:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO web14510.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.224.169) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jul 2002 16:27:53 -0000
Message-ID: <20020728162753.19194.qmail@web14510.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [68.100.20.143] by web14510.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:27:53 PDT
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <200207271531.g6RFVGt13413@red.all.net>
From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fastflyer28
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 09:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [iwar] [fc:Net-Centric.Ops,.UAVs.Reshape.Battlefields.And.Boardrooms]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,SUPERLONG_LINE version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 


The word "netcentric" was brought to DOD by are large gaggle of TRW infosec and IWAR people who now hold many of the senior position is the shop that no longer is C4ISR.  It is just C3I and Intelligence is likely to be turned into an UnderSec position which Rich Haver will get. He is a long term Cheney intelligence compatriate and presently the serior advisor to Mr. Rumsfel on Intelligence.  They actually went out of their way to create the "senior" as Rich was initially brought in to hold the same job he did working for Mr. Cheney.  It is going to get really nasty in the Intelligence world if all goes as the Bushies plan.  George Tenet and Rich have a long running bad news relationship.  We will have to see what happens in january!! 
Avation Leak did a good job with the below text.  With UAV's already been used as combanants, it will be interesting to see what occurs when the UCAV is made operational.  Their only obsticle is that both Nave and Air Force piolets could be cut out of the real loop-long term. Give all of the services view combat flight is as a job which only real men can do, the emerging conflict will be quite entertaining to see.
  Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> wrote: Aviation Week &amp; Space Technology
July 22, 2002
Net-Centric Ops, UAVs Reshape Battlefields And Boardrooms
By Craig Covault, Orlando, Fla. 
The same network-centric warfare and UAV revolution changing the modern
battlefield is also reshaping corporate boardrooms, as engineers and
managers awaken to the growing symbiotic relationships between manned and
unmanned air operations and space and information systems. 
The network-centric/UAV paradigm, already a key element of transformation in
the Defense Dept., is beginning to transform the corporate landscape, top
defense and industry managers meeting here said.
Boeing's decision to create a huge new Integrated Defense Systems
organization, linking its net-centric and communications work with its
defense and space business, is one dramatic indication of this shift, as is
the Northrop Grumman/TRW merger ( AW&amp;ST July 15, pp. 23 and 24). 
Another example is the recent annual meeting of the Assn. for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) here, which drew 2,000 UAV managers
and engineers from 17 countries--double the attendees from last year. The
event also attracted nearly 120 UAV exhibitors who filled a large convention
center to capacity. 
"Our industry is exploding," said Brad Brown, president of AUVSI, the
world's largest organization devoted to UAVs and their use in
network-centric operations. 
The combination of UAVs and net-centric operations is the epitome of defense
transformation, said Kevin Meiners, the director of intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance systems under the assistant secretary of
Defense for command, control, communications and intelligence. 
He said the Defense Dept. is likely to pour more special
transformation-related funding into network-centric and UAV operations in
2004. Transformation "is not just a buzzword--it's a pot of money" that in
this case will benefit UAV and network-centric operations, Meiners said. 
Network-centric/UAV ops are exactly the kind of program efforts Pentagon
planners want to move to the fore, he said. 
Meiners noted that UAV and network-centric considerations are a primary
reason the Defense Dept. has marked $3 billion starting in 2003 for its
Transformational Communications program. "We do not want UAV operations
limited by bandwidth," he said. 
That effort is focused on the eventual proliferation of high-data-rate
laser-communications relay spacecraft and far more common ground terminals
that can be used by multiple users (AW&amp;ST Jan. 21, 2001, p. 27). 
PLANNERS WOULD LIKE each sensor on a fleet of UAVs to have, in effect, an
Internet address so all users could cue up whatever data they want, Meiners
said. Current bottleneck points, such as the National Imagery and Mapping
Agency, would plug in "value added" where appropriate, but not throttle data
exchange as occurs now. The flow chart he presented was a circle with the
UAV sensor, user and agencies equal--as opposed to the more current top-down
chart where data from a UAV entering an agency like NIMA might not ever
leave it. 
As the benefits of network-centric UAV operations become increasingly clear,
so do the challenges of UAV command and control beyond a limited number of
platforms overflying relatively localized areas. 
Although Predator and Global Hawk have pioneered UAV surveillance and attack
operations over Afghanistan, it is the ground control side of the equation
that has limited operations somewhat, said Marine Col. R. Thomas Bright,
deputy chief of operations in the Operations Directorate at U.S. Central
Command in Tampa. 
The entire Enduring Freedom operation in Afghanistan has been conducted with
just eight Predators--but only 1-3 can be airborne at any given time, Bright
said. He also heads the Joint Operations Center at Central Command. 
"What we would like to do is put multiple UAVs up, [but that is limited] due
to the ground control station," he said. "It's not a function of not having
enough airframes, but rather the [limitations of] the ground station. We
would love to have 5-6 in the air at any one time." 
He noted that often Afghanistan surveillance by the Predator is
characterized as 24 hr. a day/seven days a week. But that is for localized
coverage only. 
A single Predator aloft for 12 hr. can provide significant coverage of two
areas. It can loiter for a while over Kandahar, then, for example, fly to
Kabul and provide surveillance there before returning to land. Although
valuable, it is not providing full coverage of the entire country by any
means. 
And without mentioning Iraq, Bright highlighted the problem of providing
comprehensive Predator coverage of any larger near-term conflict. 
"If we were to get into a bitter conflict where we have more significant
targets to deal with, or a larger or more broadly defined area to deal
with--then you complicate this issue of 24/7 coverage," he said. 
Operationally, icing has limited some missions, but heat can be a problem as
well, he said. A Predator rolled out of its shelter in 100F weather
literally must be launched within 5-10 min. or it likely will have its
mission scrubbed because the components in its sensor suite cannot tolerate
the 150F temperatures that can build up inside the aircraft if takeoff is
delayed by even a few minutes. 
Three Global Hawks have also been assigned to support Afghanistan, and there
the problem has been overall complexity of its command and control chain.
Three communications satellite links are required for typical Afghan Global
Hawk operations. 
A mission support element in Europe controls the Global Hawk via satellite,
and the UAV also returns data to Europe via satellite. The mission element
in Europe then retransmits the data via satellite back to the U.S., where it
is distributed to the analysis and tactical planning communities. 
The U.S.-based element then retransmits information via satellite back to
the European control station to retask the Global Hawk sensors based on what
they found in the first place. The Global Hawk operations in Afghanistan are
complicated "because it depends on assets on the ground throughout the
world, as opposed to Predator, which has most of its ground support elements
inside the Afghan area of operation," Bright said. 
Enhanced situational awareness is what Predator particularly brings to the
Afghan theater, Bright said. "This is probably the most misunderstood
element of what a UAV brings to the table." 
In that regard, Predator has proved to be extremely valuable in working
through subtle issues involved with rules of engagement. This has been
especially notable in avoiding collateral damage or civilian casualties when
the UAV has been paired with strike aircraft or firing its own Hellfire
missiles. 
But Predator is still an "immature system"--more analogous to what the U.S.
Air Force OV-10 Broncos and their pilots provided through the Persian Gulf
war in 1991, Bright said. 
Current Predator ops--from both a surveillance and self-strike
capability--mimic much of what the OV-10 did earlier, but without risking
the two crewmen, he added. 
The autonomous control of UAVs so they can provide a "truly ubiquitous
battlefield" presence remains a tremendous challenge, said Jacob Hinchman of
the Air Force Research Laboratory's Air Vehicles/Control Science Div. The
pairing of UAV situational assessments with tightly coupled tasks between
multiple UAVs--the type of operations necessary for broader UAV
application--creates a huge problem, he stated in a paper at the meeting. 
To provide perspective on where current UAV and network-centric operations
are now, compared with where they will be in several years, an analogy to
the Wright Brothers is useful, said Rear Adm. John V. Chenevey, program
executive officer for strike weapons and unmanned aviation. 
He noted that it has taken 100 years to progress from the Wright Flyer to
current high-performance aircraft operations. 
Chenevey said, however, that while current UAV development and operations
are more on a par with the early "wing warping" control design of the Wright
Flyer, he predicted the breakthroughs it has taken a century to accomplish
with manned aircraft will be achieved on a scale of only 30 years in UAVs
because of the importance being attributed to them now.

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/7dY7FD/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:31 PDT