Technical Post

There doesnt seem to be a forum for this sort of thing but being an ex WAFU, there may be some interesting replies.

It crossed my mind the other day when i was thinking about the friendly fire problem, that we are about to (certainly in Scotland) bring in this spy in the sky for motorists, Can tell where you are, your speed and position and everything else that it entails, Instead of painting tops of our vehicles orange ,or as well as, how difficult would it be in this day and age, to fit this equipment into military vehicles and use our awac planes?

If anyone picks up on this i claim my £25 from the Herbert Lott Fund.

 

It's already out there Hig, it's called Bowman, and you don't need the AWAC aircraft

 

Its plainly not working as it should then,

 

I see no reason (apart from cost, weight space and lead times of items and the modification) that IFF or a varient thereof could be fitted. But then the squaddies (bless their cotton socks) would have to be trained to use it which again costs money. So in the long run it all comes down to money or the lack of it as we are always being told. I may be wrong on this and plse correect me if I am

 

Blue Forces Tracker, which has been brought in since that incident?

 

And the fact that IFF is a transmitter! Never a good idea to transmit your position when you are sneeking around in the undergrowth trying to blend in with the wildlife

 

Correction is.... Only one 'e' in correction and 'Fly Navy DIG ARMY Walk Sideways' .........

 

i think you might be suprized to know that IFF has come on a little, and can now be used in a secure mode. BFTs are cheap, simple and small so why they do not buy enough for all platforms in green, dark blue and light blue.
also when ever new systems are introduced training of the engineers is way down in the priorities list that they tend to be forgotton. as long as the operators are ok then who gives a stuff about the engineers

 

Irrespective of being secure or insecure it still transmits - it therefore generates an electromagnetic signature and no matter how good your camo, you can be detected. Secure is not the same as stealthy.

 

Going back to my first post, why, can these gadgets not be installed into military vehicles and monitered from the air?

 

BOWMAN??? Would that be

Better Off With Map And Nokia???

 

If you cannot use transmitters, orange panels on top of your vehicles or information sent to your allied colleagues we can pretty much assume that we're fcuked then!

 

Hig, the yanks have trackers on individuals, never mind vehicles...........

 

but if you use the secure IFF then it will not transmit unless interogatted by a correctly code question, then it will reply with a secure transmission. yes it does transmit but only if interrogated correctly

 

i am unsure as to which but tanks do carry IFF

 

As an un civil servant when we introduced any new kit , be it as a UOR or whatever, training of engineers was ALWAYS contracted for. It is short sighted to train only the operators. But in this penny pinching ear we live in it may be decreed that equipment may go straight from First Line (the user) to Fourth Line (the contractor. Personally I do not like the 1st to 4th policy I would rather see at least a filter bench in the system to cull the no fault found items.

 

Blue on Blue avoidance is a difficult question as you have to provide a secure system that also does not electronically give away your position. BFT is monitored from a great range via satellite although how often it updates its postion i am unsure and thus can be monitored from great range. IFF the usual suspect and SIFF both only reply when interrogated, therefore minimising transmission time and ths detection time and at a shorter range but still up to 100Nm. However not many A/C have the capability to interrogate, either BFT or IFF, bring on the AWAC/849/MerlinMk1?
Ultimately this is the problem becuase if you build a system that interrogates as well as replies the Detection time is greatly increased. So if a tank has the reply system similar to curent A/C it means the A/C must be able to interrogate and allow a greater chance for detection.

Something needs to be done but it is not as simple as it first appears and requires balancing of risk, do you make a tank less vunerable by making an A/C more so?

 

so explain why the current UORs in for the MK4 and those in the last 2 years (at least) have not included any training for engineers. they may be contracted but we never see it. one system (quite a major one) and the training was in Canada
oh guess how many engineers from the squadron went???
and now guess how many from the platform IPT???
For me the use of the phrase UOR is an excuse for the reduction in training availibility to the engineers by stating they in the UOR timeframe training cannot be designed or created, rubbish, lets save money by not training anyone. the systems that are been introduced are complexe and require knowledge to maintain the systems but yet again it is been put low in the priorities oh well now you know why the A/C availibility will suffer due to lack of knowledge

 

I cannot comment on what other IPT's did or do now. When we bought in DAS for the army we had both users and engineers trained on it by the company at the urers place of work, however not one of the IPT were sent on the course as it was deemed more important/useful that the users/engineers had the training, after all what would we desk people have gained from it?
My advice is to talk to the relevant desk officer and badger him/her into getting you training, they should have a pot of money for training and it SHOULD be in the contract if it is not badger them for a contract amendment to have it put in. By the way I agree with you about training the engineers as it is fundemental for aircraft availability you are leaning against an open door here on that one

 

So if you have say an AWACS overhead blithely interrogating everything in theatre, any asset with secure IFF will automatically respond. There surely remains a risk that incorrectly applied EMCON could result in inadvertent detection. The introduction of IFF which by design incorporates a transmitter means that you are introducing the possibility of electro-magnetic detection.