Slashdot Mirror

Does anything used by military against enemy become a weapon?

Probably - they refer to information as a weapon and propaganda doesn't harm anyone or anything.

That's not true. Americans also killed other Americans. Sometimes due in part to lack of sleep.

Already developed

This kind of link has been required for a long time w/many systems already in use that need to share information on the battlefield.

STARS is something that does a lot of this already. (My sister in law works for Boeing and Apaches are able to share incredible amounts of data w/a wide variety of) systems.

That site should give some good info and be a good launch pad for further digging if you are really interested in military data links.

lots of good pix here
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm

a paper on SBL for missile defense
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/98-16 5.htm

SBL fact sheet (PDF)
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/sbl.pdf

Missile Defense Agency homepage
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink . tml

other links
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/md/sbl/
http://www.sbl.losangeles.af.mil/Divisions/FrontOf fice/body.htm
http://www.trw.com/presskits/detailinfo/0,1067,2_1 2^2^12^40,FF.html

IIRC, there is no record of anyone ever being hit and killed by a meteor.

Information about the 123 deaths from meteorites in the past couple of centuries is here.

One of my coworkers was a crew chief in the early 90's for a B-52 that was built in 1962. He said, even though the plane may be fourty years old, so many parts (nose, wings, tail, fuselage sections, navcomp, weapons, et cetera) have been replaced over time that the build date of the plane is more like 1980-something.

Every few years, they basically take the plane apart and put it together. Since many of the parts are no longer available from the original manufacturers, the facility that does this work has the ability to build pretty much any needed replacement part from scratch by measuring/analyzing/reverse-engineering the originals. (There was a story linked by /. a few months ago about the Air Force sending a B-52H to OCALC to be refitted and turned over to NASA to replace its B-52B launch aircraft, but I can't seem to locate it.)

All Software Engineers should have a look at Correctness by Construction: Better can also be Cheaper from Crosstalk the Journal of Defence Software Engineering. It contrasts the usual C approach with one using a really tight but powerful subset (SPARK) of an already pretty tight language, Ada

* SPARK code was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of full Ada; Ada was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of code written in C. This is an interesting counter to those who maintain that choice of programming language does not matter, and that critical code can be written correctly in any language : The claim may be true in principle but clearly is not commonly achieved in practice.

This isn't just an anecdote: there are documented facts. The results (for the problem domain of aircraft avionics and large systems) may not be applicable to the normal b2b and gamezware - but then again, they might. Have a look at the stuff in bold later in this post.

It's not a magic bullet : from the same article:

In December 1999 CrossTalk, David Cook provided a well-reasoned historical analysis of programming language development and considered the role languages play in the software development process. The article was valuable because it showed that programming language developments are not sufficient to ensure success; however, it would be dangerous to conclude from this that they are not necessary for success. Cook rightly identifies other issues such as requirements capture, specifications, and verification and validation (V&V) that need to be addressed.

But the real kicker, one that should cause everyone to sit up and take notice, is this:

• Code quality improved by a factor of 10 over industry norms for DO-178B Level A software.
• Productivity improved by a factor of four over previous comparable programs.
• Development costs were half that typical for non safety-critical code
• With re-use and process maturity, there was a further productivity improvement of four on the C27J airlifter program.

One more thing: the SPARK and similar RAVENSCAR ( pdf, HTML version here) subsets of Ada-95 are just that : (proper)subsets that just omit certain language constructs. Write to the profile, and the code is compileable by any Ada-95 compiler, like the downloadable Free GNU version GNAT 3.14p (though commercial users might want the latest-and-greatest non-free version 3.15a. And the ORK (Open Ravenscar Kernel) is, as the name implies, an Open Source Kernel for reliable real-time embedded systems.

Better, Cheaper, Faster, Open-Source with Free-as-in-Beer downloadable compilers. IMHO worth at least investigating, even if you decide Microsoft's latest language-du-jour is more appropriate for your situation. YMMV, and COBOL, C++, Assembler, C#, Java or even VB might be better in your case. But worth a look.

All Software Engineers should have a look at Correctness by Construction: Better can also be Cheaper from Crosstalk the Journal of Defence Software Engineering. It contrasts the usual C approach with one using a really tight but powerful subset (SPARK) of an already pretty tight language, Ada

* SPARK code was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of full Ada; Ada was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of code written in C. This is an interesting counter to those who maintain that choice of programming language does not matter, and that critical code can be written correctly in any language : The claim may be true in principle but clearly is not commonly achieved in practice.

This isn't just an anecdote: there are documented facts. The results (for the problem domain of aircraft avionics and large systems) may not be applicable to the normal b2b and gamezware - but then again, they might. Have a look at the stuff in bold later in this post.

It's not a magic bullet : from the same article:

In December 1999 CrossTalk, David Cook provided a well-reasoned historical analysis of programming language development and considered the role languages play in the software development process. The article was valuable because it showed that programming language developments are not sufficient to ensure success; however, it would be dangerous to conclude from this that they are not necessary for success. Cook rightly identifies other issues such as requirements capture, specifications, and verification and validation (V&V) that need to be addressed.

But the real kicker, one that should cause everyone to sit up and take notice, is this:

• Code quality improved by a factor of 10 over industry norms for DO-178B Level A software.
• Productivity improved by a factor of four over previous comparable programs.
• Development costs were half that typical for non safety-critical code
• With re-use and process maturity, there was a further productivity improvement of four on the C27J airlifter program.

One more thing: the SPARK and similar RAVENSCAR ( pdf, HTML version here) subsets of Ada-95 are just that : (proper)subsets that just omit certain language constructs. Write to the profile, and the code is compileable by any Ada-95 compiler, like the downloadable Free GNU version GNAT 3.14p (though commercial users might want the latest-and-greatest non-free version 3.15a. And the ORK (Open Ravenscar Kernel) is, as the name implies, an Open Source Kernel for reliable real-time embedded systems.

Better, Cheaper, Faster, Open-Source with Free-as-in-Beer downloadable compilers. IMHO worth at least investigating, even if you decide Microsoft's latest language-du-jour is more appropriate for your situation. YMMV, and COBOL, C++, Assembler, C#, Java or even VB might be better in your case. But worth a look.

Check out the site for the Starfire Optical Range in NM, lots of cool info and pictures of laser telescopes:

http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/SOR/sorweb.htm

Someone hit me with a clue-by-four if I'm talking out of my arse or if not, tell me what decent compiled languages exist out there =)

No, you're not talking anally, it's a good question.Try Ada-95, or one of its proper subsets if you want embedded systems.

Rather than give lots of religious arguments, unverified opinions and hot air, here's some resources and quotes:

From Crosstalk (March 2002) :

There is now compelling evidence that development methods that focus on bug prevention rather than bug detection can both raise quality and save time and money. A recent, large avionics project reported a four-fold productivity and 10-fold quality improvement by adopting such methods. A key ingredient of correctness by construction is the use of unambiguous programming languages that allow rigorous analysis very early in the development process.

SPARK code was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of full Ada; Ada was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of code written in C. This is an interesting counter to those who maintain that choice of programming language does not matter, and that critical code can be written correctly in any language: The claim may be true in principle but clearly is not commonly achieved in practice. (emphasis added by me)

Parenthetically, I get a little miffed when I see so much unsupported balderdash being purveyed in Ye Greatte Language Warres. Try looking at the experiments people, you know, data, numbers etc? The Scientific method? But I digress, back to the stuff useful to you.

Another Crosstalk article, proving fairly conclusively that a working Ada programs's easier to write than a working C program, at least in some problem domains (high performance, real-time).

Ada for C and C++ programmers shows you how to do what you want, if you know C.

The LRM - Language Reference Manual, ISO-8652 (yes, it's an ISO standard). This version is the one with annotations.

Oh yes, there's an open-source compiler, GNAT available for free download. Like GCC, it's industrial-strength.

Finally, I'll echo my own experiences with the C++ STL: namely, that implementations differ markedly, portability is not a possibility, and performing surgery deep in their bowels is like unravelling rancid spaghetti. But YMMV I guess. Code Warrior 7 and MVC++5 were not compatible for anything other than trivial examples.

Someone hit me with a clue-by-four if I'm talking out of my arse or if not, tell me what decent compiled languages exist out there =)

No, you're not talking anally, it's a good question.Try Ada-95, or one of its proper subsets if you want embedded systems.

Rather than give lots of religious arguments, unverified opinions and hot air, here's some resources and quotes:

From Crosstalk (March 2002) :

There is now compelling evidence that development methods that focus on bug prevention rather than bug detection can both raise quality and save time and money. A recent, large avionics project reported a four-fold productivity and 10-fold quality improvement by adopting such methods. A key ingredient of correctness by construction is the use of unambiguous programming languages that allow rigorous analysis very early in the development process.

SPARK code was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of full Ada; Ada was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of code written in C. This is an interesting counter to those who maintain that choice of programming language does not matter, and that critical code can be written correctly in any language: The claim may be true in principle but clearly is not commonly achieved in practice. (emphasis added by me)

Parenthetically, I get a little miffed when I see so much unsupported balderdash being purveyed in Ye Greatte Language Warres. Try looking at the experiments people, you know, data, numbers etc? The Scientific method? But I digress, back to the stuff useful to you.

Another Crosstalk article, proving fairly conclusively that a working Ada programs's easier to write than a working C program, at least in some problem domains (high performance, real-time).

Ada for C and C++ programmers shows you how to do what you want, if you know C.

The LRM - Language Reference Manual, ISO-8652 (yes, it's an ISO standard). This version is the one with annotations.

Oh yes, there's an open-source compiler, GNAT available for free download. Like GCC, it's industrial-strength.

Finally, I'll echo my own experiences with the C++ STL: namely, that implementations differ markedly, portability is not a possibility, and performing surgery deep in their bowels is like unravelling rancid spaghetti. But YMMV I guess. Code Warrior 7 and MVC++5 were not compatible for anything other than trivial examples.

Why don't you get your hand off your dick for 5 minutes and look for some info on EM transmitters.

I like petting kittens.

Do you honestly believe that the same device could transmit frequencies across the ENTIRE FUCKING EM SPECTRUM?!

Both narrowband and UWB can be harmful against lots of stuff, quoting US military sources,

an official from the U.S. Army's Space and Missile Defense Command stated that recent scientific advances in radio frequency (RF) weapons technology by several states raise significant concerns. Broadly speaking, these weapons use high power microwave energy, in either narrow or wideband form, to disrupt or destroy the high-density metal oxide semiconductor devices that are used in modern computers and sensors.....

Current technology has produced a 25-gigawatt ultra-wideband source, a 100-gigawatt UWB device is anticipated within a year, and finally, travelling wave devices are also being explored for UWB applications

The US has already developed an anti-satelite missile, launched by an F-15 in a steep climb. Not sure if it's still part of the ready arsenal, but I'm sure it could be if necessary.

Agreeing with many posters here on the 'importance' of tech in the 'war on terrorism', here are a couple of mirrors of a story that first appeared in The Weekly Standard.

maxwell.af.mil
Geocities
a canned Google search

And while we're at it, have a look at Osama bin Virus.

Those that contract out for the Defense sector, pick your branch.

Not to be outdone, the National Guard has a theme of its own.

Those that contract out for the Defense sector, pick your branch.

Not to be outdone, the National Guard has a theme of its own.

And in response to the grandparent of this post, good luck hitting any LEO satellite with a missle. That's like trying to shoot a fly at 5000 yards with a .44. Talk about a feat!

Actually, hitting a satellite in orbit was done back in the '80's. Sure, it was by the US Air Force, but I don't think that they have a monopoly on cool weapons tech. ASAT missle

The Computer Science Department of the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University received a contract from the Ada 9X Project Office, under the direction of Ms Christine M. Anderson, to develop a GNU/Ada system. The work was co-sponsored by ARPA and the Ada Joint Program Office.

GNAT has been validated on many platforms, by Ada Core Technologies (ACT), a company devoted to supporting users of this compiler.

Besides that, if you use Windows, you can use a free IDE, AdaGIDE, developed at the Department of Computer Science of the USAF Academy. The IDE is of course free software put under the terms of the GPL.

First, it's rubber bands and potato plug guns with a range up to 100 ft (btw, those are fun!).

Then it starts to escalate, as the potato plug guns are replaced by hand held laser-guided bolt-action aluminum SP9004 potato rifles.

In the end, you have seven inch air cannons shooting frozen chicken carcasses around the office at 391 mph.

Ok, I realize the that last example has not yet been used in an office setup, but I'm confident that, given enough bored guys and industrial quantities of beer, it will happen one day.

Just imagine the look of your PHB when you point this baby at him after he's pestered you about your daily status report. Hmmmm, maybe this is a good thing.

I don't know about a single Icelander that died in WWII

Icelandic losses on the seas during World War II were proportionately as great as the number of solders lost by the United States. The economy of Iceland depended on suppling fish to Britain during the war and many trawlers were sunk by U-boats.

Trawlers were also sunk rescuing survivors of allied ships that had been torpedoed by U-boats. An example was S.S. Goðafoss, which was sunk by a German U-boat in November, 1944. The ship had stopped to rescue 19 men from a burning English tanker when it was torpedoed. It sank within 7 minutes and took with it 24 people (10 passengers and 14 crewmembers), among them a family of 5 (2 doctors returning from US and their 3 children), along with 14 of the rescued British seamen.

In addition, Iceland had a famous ace, Thorsteinn Jonsson, in the RAF who shot down 8 German planes over Europe and survived the war to fly humanitarian missions in Biafra.

Informative my fucking ass. For all the fucking money that is pissed into NASA, they could do a lot more. NASA is dying, face it.

Read this for the real reason why NASA is so important in the eyes of the government.

... with an admitted US-centric bent.

The Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton OH. Those of you who are pretty quick will note that Dayton is where the Wright Brothers made their airplane, and the museum is located at the old location of Wright Field, named after the brothers. (The base itself is a combination of Wright and Patterson Fields - thus the name "Wright-Patterson". Wow!)

There is a full-scale replica of the Wright 1909 Military Flyer.

Cheers,
Brian

... with an admitted US-centric bent.

The Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton OH. Those of you who are pretty quick will note that Dayton is where the Wright Brothers made their airplane, and the museum is located at the old location of Wright Field, named after the brothers. (The base itself is a combination of Wright and Patterson Fields - thus the name "Wright-Patterson". Wow!)

There is a full-scale replica of the Wright 1909 Military Flyer.

Cheers,
Brian

Run Forest...run!

The AC-130...zooomed in

Polar orbit launches don't get much help from Earth's rotation, but they still have range safety issues: if the rocket blows up, will the wreckage land on anybody?

The U.S. launches almost all of its polar orbit satellites from Vandenberg AFB in California. By launching to the south there are no people for a very long way, should anything go wrong. The situation is similar for Alaska.

...laura

A number of you have asked whether the websites taken down since 9/11 are available on archive.org. The answer is yes. One example is:

DC Air National Guard on Archive

Same Page - 404

One of the conspiracy websites that I have read was saying that combat airplanes, normally on 24 hour alert, at this base should have and could have prevented the plane from entering the restricted airspace in DC. They were saying that this site was removed because it provided evidence that somebody dropped the ball.

How about this [pdf, 2M]. The main problem is early detection. Modifying the trajectory of any decent sized object is considerably more difficult the closer it gets to Earth. Why? Because more force is needed to alter the trajectory to eliminate the possibility of collision. If you can give a small nudge when the object is much farther away, this beats a huge nudge when it is close by. Not that we have any organized way to produce any kind of nudge right now.

When I worked at AEDC I spent some time involved in NASA Lewis (now Glenn)'s numerical propulsion system simulation project. The idea of this project was to apply OO principles to turbine engine modeling.

Each component of a modern engine was viewed as an object (compressor, turbine, burner, etc). The solver could use helper aplications of any complexity to model components, then tie them together (very useful for integrating proprietary codes with a common architecture).

I could talk a lot more about it but it has been years and it would be better for you just to follow the link...

neh

You know where we all can get free food, rent and tuition?

And you also get paid for it, too!!!

So how long before a squadron of B-52 Stratofortress long range bombers is dispatched from Minot AFB to a certain location in the state of Washington?

Mig-31 has the same characteristics (Mach 3), and is still on duty (it's an evolution of Mig-25).

But i think that the famous U2 (it's called TR-1 in latest evolutions), was shot by a SAM, not that Mig.

BTW, SR-71 shouldn't have been called that way, it's a mistake from Carter. I think it should have been RS-71.

We've got literally thousands of old planes mothballed out in Arizona - not just B52s but B47s and B36s as well.

Primary Function: Heavy bomber
Contractor: Boeing Military Airplane Co.
Power plant: Eight Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan
Thrust: Each engine up to 17,000 pounds
Length: 159 feet, 4 inches (48.5 meters)
Height: 40 feet, 8 inches (12.4 meters)
Wingspan: 185 feet (56.4 meters)
Speed: 650 miles per hour (Mach 0.86)
Ceiling: 50,000 feet (15,151.5 meters)
Weight: Approximately 185,000 pounds empty (83,250 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 488,000 pounds (219,600 kilograms)
Range: Unrefueled 8,800 miles (7,652 nautical miles)
Armament: Approximately 70,000 pounds (31,500 kilograms) mixed ordnance -- bombs, mines and missiles. (Modified to carry air-launched cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship and Have Nap missiles.)
Crew: Five (aircraft commander, pilot, radar navigator, navigator and electronic warfare officer)
Accommodations: Six ejection seats
Unit Cost: $74 million
Date Deployed: February 1955
Inventory: Active force, 85; ANG, 0; Reserve, 9

More facts and an imposing photo at AF.MIL

Oh btw, great post, Hemos / Merry / Greygent!

See:
AIM-54 Phoenix Missile
AIM-120 AMRAAM

You don't have to "hear" anything. You can check it out for yourself.

The best defense is a good offense. It appears that the general practice of the U.S. military is to first achieve air superiority before moving in ground forces (who are presumably the primary users of the GPS system). Since a jammer is basically a big radio transmitter, turning a jammer on in the presence of one of these (also here) when the U.S. has air superiority is like announcing "Here are my precise coordinates, please shoot me with a missile."

The Chinese have got a pretty good point. There's no particular reason that they can't militarize space the same way the US is trying to. The US isn't even very secretive about its plans to flaunt international treaties regarding the militarization of space. In fact, their websites have stories about how they are currently researching war in space. If anyone started an arms race in space, it wasn't China, it was the US and the former USSR.

It's one thing to launch an 11m rocket some 5000ft, it's quite another to build a functioning spacecraft!

At the very minimum it would have to carry a ton of payload; most probably quite a bit more. To get an idea of the kinds of equipment involved, this link on the Delta II provides a good overview of the kind of sheer power and equipment needed to put even a relatively small 5 ton payload into space.

Even the new X-34 being developed by NASA for cheaper space-flight still estimates a $500'000 cost per launch, and that's not even including the construction costs!

That an amateur could attempt this at all is ridiculous, let alone be the first non-governmental outfit to achieve this. You have to wonder what's going on in this guy's head.

This
picture shows Col. Kittinger jumping out of the gondola. This has to be one of the most incredible pictures ever taken...

here's some more ...

Frankly, the government should rethink its policy and seek reimbursement from thrillseekers.

Um, these particular thrillseekers ARE the government (UK government that is). From their website: "QinetiQ comprises the greater part of DERA, the British Government's 'Defence Evaluation and Research Agency'" While many posts about this story seem to think that this is a couple of guys puttering about their garage looking to get an honorable mention in the Darwin Awards they are in fact doing military research. For a quick explanation on why a modern military might be interested in balloons check out this Scientific American article on modern "observations ballons" or "Aerostat Radar System" as the U.S. military calls it.

Already have it Well, something like that at least. I also remember seeing something about a Navy project looking into using balloons to replace the E2C (you know those little mini-awacs they fly from carriers) Seems like a crazy idea since I doubt you would want a tethered balloon if you ran into rough weather and an untethered balloon would just float around on the wind (what little there is at that altitude) not going where you want it to go.

I think that some of this video was included in this 'debunking' roswell video (quicktime; I saw it a while ago, so please don't flame me if I'm wrong). If I remember correctly, one of the weird things about parachuting from this altitude is that there is no wind and no good visual point of reference -- you're just in the (very thin) air, floating... no sense of falling at all...

As mentioned in the BBC article, DARPA made the first successful scramjet launch this past August. Here is the DARPA report on the launch. The BBC's description of the DARPA launch is a tad misleading - they say it was launched from a "gun", but really it was a 2 stage, 150 foot railgun capable of launching a 17 pound projectile at 9,200 mph.

As mentioned in the BBC article, DARPA made the first successful scramjet launch this past August. Here is the DARPA report on the launch. The BBC's description of the DARPA launch is a tad misleading - they say it was launched from a "gun", but really it was a 2 stage, 150 foot railgun capable of launching a 17 pound projectile at 9,200 mph.

AFI 33-202: Computer Security

AFMAN 33-221: Computer Security: Protected Distribution Systems (PDS)

AFI 33-202: Computer Security

AFMAN 33-221: Computer Security: Protected Distribution Systems (PDS)

I worked over the summer at a federally funded research and development corporation (think ``military industrial complex'') in a department that develops various remote sensors such as are flown on General Atomics' ``Predator'' unmanned aerial vehicle. Nearly all of the engineers in my department preferred Linux to Windows, but due to Navy requirements they were required to deliver a Windows NT-based product. Their response was essentially to bring unix to NT. By using Cygwin they were able to program in what looked and smelled liked a Linux development environment, yet it was really Windows NT. Furthermore the code could easily be adapted for customers who were more open minded about Linux. I found Cygwin to be very impressive indeed.

I also have worked at LBL where Linux is nothing short of pervasive. We even have experiments at the south pole run by Linux machines, such as the AMANDA project, a giant neutrino telescope embedded kilometers down in the ice at the pole.

Wright Patterson Air Force in Dayton, Ohio runs: SCO, AIX, RedHat, SuSe, and damn near everything thing else.

Most of our space craft ARE in orbit around the earth. This would be great for satellites, especially microsatellites. These are usually under 100kg and could be used for anything from satellite observation and diagnostics to cheap comm sats to HDTV mobile cameras. This experiment could help drive their cost down as it would mean that they could use a cheap GPS receiver for guidance instead of some clumsy, custom method. The US Air Force has some interesting ideas. As does this New Scientist article.