Slashdot Mirror
War(ship) Driving For 802.11b Controlled Destroyers
Jason Straight writes "There's a story at pcworld, that describes how navy warships will be equipped with 802.11b networking to allow the captain to control the ship from anywhere on the ship.
" The point of the article also gets into the issue of cutting manpower for the ships - going from 300 people on each to destroyer to 90, and makes the point that the only way to do is through automation.
Whoever makes 802.11b repeaters will have their stock shooting up in the next few days then. With their excessive steelwork and armory, a warship is an extremely BAD place to run on 802.11b as the signals will bounce around everywhere (being at the high frequency they are).
Funnily enough, a lot of people predicted the coming of 'war boating' just three months ago here on Slashdot.
mogorific carpentry experiments
So you have some terrorist who jams things or sends confusing orders to the ship. The crew is trying to figure out what is going on when WHAM the strike takes place.
If weapon systems are under control of such a remote control pad then it is even scarier.
Speaking as a sailor (served from '88 to '96, and now from '01 to present..didn't want to miss this war), I can tell you that *everyone* on board a warship is a firefighter. There are some guys who specialize in it, but they just lead the fire teams. Everyone, from the newest seaman recruit up to the Old Man hisself, is expected to lend a hand in putting out any fires. Think of it: you've got nowhere to run to, and the idea of sitting in the ocean until you're rescued isn't very appetizing (except to the sharks...).
Reducing a ship's compliment by over 2/3 is a Bad Idea. When one of these ships gets hit with something the size of the bomb that hit the USS Cole, or the missiles that hit the USS Stark, I guarantee she will go down like a two dollar whore. The Stark is an especially good example, because when the missiles struck, one hit near her primary magazine. One lone individual kept the powder cool with a fire hose until he was found hours later. Considering his job was one of the ones likely to be eliminated by this "advance" in technology, the ship would almost definitely have gone down if she had been outfitted with it instead of a well trained crew.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
However, I distinctly remember that the navy used to be proud of their lack of automation. This allowed warships to survive severe amounts of damage without perishing. If a radio operator is severely wounded, you can replace them. If your transmitter board is damaged, you can throw in a new one. If a jolt takes out the hard drive on your software radio, you're screwed. Perhaps the US hasn't been in a real war for so long they forgot how to design for damage?
I'm not saying I want a war, or that I dislike the idea of warship automation, but the original stated intention of the Navy seemed somehow admirable in a way that installing 802.11b wireless helm control just doesn't. Increased automation does tend to increase the fragility of a device, and the amount of problems that might occurr. What happens when the captain walks out of range of a transmitter? What happens if the laptop is stolen, or comandeered? What is stopping someone from dropping little 802.11b jamlets onboard?
And what OS, praytell, will this system support? Will the Navy solicit imput from BMW?
-c
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
trains pretty much have two directions to go in normal operation
trains do not carry armed cruise missiles
trains get additional signalling from devices embedded on the track which could override internal commands
This is a far cry from controlling a warship...
+++ath0
First of all, as a Marine that has spent time aboard ships, this seems absolutely ridiculous. They Navy hates automation beyond email. Second of all, this is just asking to get hacked. 802.11b can be received for kilometers. Being on the ocean, one big reflective antenna, you could probably extend this distance to miles with a decent antenna, obviously with great latency, but it would work. I couldn't access the story, but I really hope the Navy rethinks this technological advance.
The British Royal Navy has resisted automation for years. They purposefully take many more crew members than they need so that when they lose half of them in battle the ship can still function.
There is a good reason why warships have more people then are strictly necessacry to run them on board. Simply, if a whole bunch of people get killed on the ship, then there are still enough left to run it. This is not insignifigant, after all who wants to have an undermanned ship after 1/4-1/2 the crew dies?
The point is that they are reducing the people that are "strictly necessary". They can then reduce the manpower, and still have a reserve.
Do you know why warships are expensive? No, the main part is actually not building them. Over the life-time of the ship, the far biggest cost is salaries to the people on board. The navy has realized this and it is very wise to reduce the number of sailors and increase automation.
Furthermore, in these days the public is very sensitive about casualties (rightly so); it is thus good to reduce the numnber of people exposed to risk.
Tor
Just broadcast a stronger, interfering signal on the same spread spectrum. They could probably use a home cordless phone (some of which seems to pretty much kill 802.11b in many residences) and a pringles can.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The military could and should go with software that is based on open standards: UNIX/POSIX, X11, etc. And in their implementations and deployments, they should then stick as much as possible to those open standards. They can then buy software and hardware from many different vendors and have a choice among multiple implementations, including some open source ones.
The parent actually raises a good point. Can the captain stay informed enough in any given position on the ship to make command and control decisions effectively? I doubt it.