Tigershark_BAS 0 Posted March 15, 2004 [b said: Quote[/b] ]Tag protects from 'friendly fire'By Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES A new sensor may provide an all-purpose solution to the vexing and tragic problem of "friendly fire" or "fratricide" — when troops mistakenly fire upon their own in combat. Based on a decade of research for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, the New Mexico-based Sandia National Laboratories has developed a high-tech electronic "tag" that can be worn by soldiers, affixed to weapons or tucked inside vehicles. The device emits an enhanced form of radar that can be recognized and tracked by allies, providing a quick battlefield reference for "boots on the ground." Dubbed "Athena," the sensor is ready to go, Sandia researcher Lars Wells said. "It's mature enough to consider as a fratricide and situational awareness solution now, and for the long term," Mr. Wells said Friday. According to Department of Defense figures, friendly fire historically has accounted for 10 percent to 15 percent of wartime casualties. In the first seven days of the Iraq war, for example, six soldiers — or 13 percent — of the 45 allied fatalities were casualties of friendly fire. Fourteen troops died under hostile fire in the same period. During Operation Desert Storm, 24 percent of the 146 American combat deaths were caused by friendly fire. The Athena sensor is no mere radio transmitter. Instead, the device creates a kind of "synthetic radar echo," the researchers said, but with an added signature. The tag's echo also includes a small amount of key extra data, which in turn creates a unique, identifying icon on the sweep of a radar screen. In theory, a pilot overhead or a tank commander on the ground would recognize the blip and simply hold fire. Prototype models of the Athena are small, ranging in size from a pack of cigarettes to something more along the lines of a kitchen toaster. But they are meant to bring order to the battlefield. Mr. Wells hopes that every soldier eventually will be issued the electronic tag with basic equipment. "Many times during combat, the military has to pull back from an attack plan because they don't know who is on the ground," he said. Though the sensor may seem something from "Star Trek," the researchers insist it can be meshed with current systems with no expensive coddling from additional technology. "By adding tagging to existing radars, we don't need to build new equipment," noted Mike Murphy, who also worked on the project. "Our industrial partners will be able to drive down the cost quickly so that it is affordable to every Army vehicle and every Air Force jet," he added. Though government-owned, the Sandia lab is contractor-operated, now part of the Lockheed Martin Corp. But it trails its own heavy-duty history. Originally called "Z Division," the lab was founded in 1945 as the ordnance design, testing and assembly arm of Los Alamos National Laboratory, which developed the atomic bomb. The lab was run by AT&T for 44 years, and went under Lockheed's management in 1993. The Athena sensor will be tested by the U.S. Army's Communication Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center in a large-scale troop exercise this fall. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040314-114739-7262r.htm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gadger 0 Posted March 15, 2004 Didn't they use these or similar devices in the recent Iraq conflict? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted March 15, 2004 This is all great in Iraq or Haiti, but try combat in with a modern military and it will be useless. First thing the opposition is going to do is copy the hardware/codes to make themselves look friendly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio 0 Posted March 15, 2004 What's to stop the enemy obtaining the device and placing it on themselves? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted March 15, 2004 bah... should read full article..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedyDonkey 0 Posted March 15, 2004 (bn880 @ Mar. 15 2004,16:01) said: This is all great in Iraq or Haiti, but try combat in with a modern military and it will be useless. Â First thing the opposition is going to do is copy the hardware/codes to make themselves look friendly. Maybe they aren't planning to attacking those high tech countries Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted March 15, 2004 (SpeedyDonkey @ Mar. 15 2004,18:39) said: (bn880 @ Mar. 15 2004,16:01) said: This is all great in Iraq or Haiti, but try combat in with a modern military and it will be useless. First thing the opposition is going to do is copy the hardware/codes to make themselves look friendly. Maybe they aren't planning to attacking those high tech countries It might have cost you a few hundreds of vehicles when you discover that the enemy was more high-tech than you thought. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
somebloke 0 Posted March 15, 2004 I doubt it as most of them would have been blown a[art by air support. I can't see why we don't just stick a large sign saying "ENEMY THIS WAY" so everyone knows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted March 15, 2004 (bn880 @ Mar. 15 2004,16:01) said: This is all great in Iraq or Haiti, but try combat in with a modern military and it will be useless. Â First thing the opposition is going to do is copy the hardware/codes to make themselves look friendly. Indeed. And even if emulation is impossible, detection won't be. You can triangulate the position with very primitve equipment. It's the wrong way to go. The only good solution as I see it is to use directed burst transmissions to a satellite that registers the unit's position. Other units can then check against a central server if there are any friendly forces in your firing zone. With modern differential GPS, you can get the precision of position down to centimeters. Frequency hopped, directed burst transmissions are very difficult to pick up if they aren't directed directly at you.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted March 15, 2004 the only solution I see personnally is ... training. I don't like to have to rely on technological assets to fight. Just like an uniform or marking, this device could be easily reused by the enemy. The only way to prevent blue on blue accidents is to train EVERY components of the armed forces to recognise friendly assets depending of their arms, infantrymen will learn OPFOR weaponary, tactics, vehicles and clothes, the same has to be done in the same lenghths whn it comes to friendlies. A soldier has to be able to recognize its allies, not only by electronical devices such as IFF and consorts. Learn your allies' attitude and tactics, their uniform, their weapons and their vehicles. New rules of engagements have to be enforced: identification of the target before firing OR returning fire, but some thick skulls seem to think that any gunshot they hear comes from a gun aimed at them and will "return" fire immediately without much of a clear view of the enemy or a correct identification ... Friendly troops moves in battle areas have to be taken in account not only by officers but also by squad leaders before shooting anything at anyone. Well, all i'm saying is just common sense and these doctrines are already in use in some armies and units .... but hell ... most of the FF incidents we've seen in the recent past can't be blamed on massive troops movement, because with modern techs, these movements can be well ordered and coordinated, but simply by pure stupidity, stress and/or tire , often leading to the death of other servicemen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
@cero 0 Posted March 15, 2004 What about the so call "Land Warrior Program"? More Have a read to That!! And that thing suposed to be their weapon They been working in all this stuff for ages. I think that they starting to see the light now, but the wrong one. Imagine being the enemy and capture a vehicle with the radar sistem, you would know where your enemy is sliping all the time @CERO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted March 15, 2004 (ran @ Mar. 15 2004,15:21) said: snipWell, all i'm saying is just common sense and these doctrines are already in use in some armies and units .... but hell ... most of the FF incidents we've seen in the recent past can't be blamed on massive troops movement, because with modern techs, these movements can be well ordered and coordinated, but simply by pure stupidity, stress and/or tire , often leading to the death of other servicemen. I totally agree with you, and in particular I think with the training and stress remarks you hit it on the nail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted March 15, 2004 (@cero @ Mar. 15 2004,17:15) said: What about the so call "Land Warrior Program"?More Have a read to That!! http://images.usatoday.com/money....tor.jpg And that thing suposed to be their weapon They been working in all this stuff for ages. I think that they starting to see the light now, but the wrong one. Imagine being the enemy and capture a vehicle with the radar sistem, you would know where your enemy is sliping all the time @CERO. Wasn't the OICW scrapped somewhat recently? Â And IMO the landwarrior system just seem too far fetched and not practical enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
@cero 0 Posted March 16, 2004 (Harnu @ Mar. 16 2004,00:44) said: Wasn't the OICW scrapped somewhat recently? Â And IMO the landwarrior system just seem too far fetched and not practical enough. Indeed, they are working in the XM8. And yes, the Land warrior sistem seems very far fetched, but they recon that they can get it more echonomy friendly. You never know, maybe one day they will give their enemys even less of a chance. @CERO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harnu 0 Posted March 16, 2004 If I join the USMC like I want to, the last thing I will willingly use is 60 extra pounds of crap. Cameras and computers, almost literally up the wazoo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IceFire 0 Posted March 16, 2004 (ran @ Mar. 15 2004,21:21) said: the only solution I see personnally is ... training.I don't like to have to rely on technological assets to fight. Just like an uniform or marking, this device could be easily reused by the enemy. The only way to prevent blue on blue accidents is to train EVERY components of the armed forces to recognise friendly assets depending of their arms, infantrymen will learn OPFOR weaponary, tactics, vehicles and clothes, the same has to be done in the same lenghths whn it comes to friendlies. A soldier has to be able to recognize its allies, not only by electronical devices such as IFF and consorts. Learn your allies' attitude and tactics, their uniform, their weapons and their vehicles. New rules of engagements have to be enforced: identification of the target before firing OR returning fire, but some thick skulls seem to think that any gunshot they hear comes from a gun aimed at them and will "return" fire immediately without much of a clear view of the enemy or a correct identification ... Friendly troops moves in battle areas have to be taken in account not only by officers but also by squad leaders before shooting anything at anyone. Well, all i'm saying is just common sense and these doctrines are already in use in some armies and units .... but hell ... most of the FF incidents we've seen in the recent past can't be blamed on massive troops movement, because with modern techs, these movements can be well ordered and coordinated, but simply by pure stupidity, stress and/or tire , often leading to the death of other servicemen. Does the French Foreign Legion focus more on high tech technology for combat or on training? Because I think the US army likes technology alot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DracoPaladore 0 Posted March 16, 2004 People writing these articles are very easily impressed by technology. Everytime I read one of these articles, they always say "As if something from 'Star Trek'!!111ONE!". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wick_105 0 Posted March 16, 2004 when my brothers patrol was shot at by an american sf unit in afghanistan, the american officer said they heard something then shot when they saw movement...... good thing they ran out of batteries for there sights or are just bad shots, not one person on my brothers partol was hit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted March 16, 2004 (IceFire @ Mar. 16 2004,06:03) said: Does the French Foreign Legion focus more on high tech technology for combat or on training? Because I think the US army likes technology alot. Not that much, the Legion units just get the goodies the regulars get nothing too hightech .. the machette/knife and compass are still our best friends. We're taught combat skills, if combat means pressing a couple of buttons/keys .. then we failled miserably and went on useless tactical marches wasting thousands of blank cartridges. A real soldier has to be able to fight with his hands, a rifle in its most basic form and blades, he has to be able to carry on long and tedious combat marches without having to rely on heavy logistics, he has to be able to live on its own on a battlefield without support troops. I'm not against technological advances, but there are times when geeky engineer shouldn't underestimate human beings and offer us non-solutions to unexisting problems caused by bad management or brain farts. Armed forces are serious organisations, not some kind of summer-camps for wimps who can't be arsed to check at what they're firing or where they're going. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IceFire 0 Posted March 17, 2004 Yes, that is good. I agree that soldiers need to rely on their brains and basic combat skills honed to a finely tuned thing. Not on gadgets. Can I quote your post in the future? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted March 17, 2004 (IceFire @ Mar. 17 2004,02:58) said: Yes, that is good. I agree that soldiers need to rely on their brains and basic combat skills honed to a finely tuned thing. Not on gadgets.Can I quote your post in the future? My posts obey to international copyright laws .. no, just kidding, go ahead. Anybody can quote me as long as it's in the right context ... or else I may show my claws. (you may want to correct a few mistakes) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites