Slashdot Mirror


Military Tech: GPS and Networking

king of birds writes "The New York Times has an interesting article on the present military use of GPS. While some units have rather modern system that can graphically display locations of other troops, others rely on 10-year-old 5 channel receivers. Kind of odd when I can 12 channels on my civilian model (with admittedly lower spatial accuracy)." aaronvegh writes "From the Canadian Press, a story about how a US infantry division uses a system of transponders and servers to track friendly and enemy units, from the headquarters to inside individual tanks. Talk about total information awareness! No friendlies were harmed in the making of this story."

6 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Risky by sakusha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't it a little risky to put location transponders on all your military units? If the enemy cracks your transponder codes, they can easily target you.

    1. Re:Risky by f97tosc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't it a little risky to put location transponders on all your military units? If the enemy cracks your transponder codes, they can easily target you.

      Similar concerns can be raised about almost any military technology or activity. Don't use radio - the enemy might hear what you say! Don't use radar - the enemy will know where you are! Don't open fire - you will reveal your position!

      Military winners are willing to take such risks in pursuing their objectives. They know that being aware of the situation and acting proactivly and agressively is more important than never revealing anything to the enemy. There are of course circumstances where one should be stealthy, but wars are not won by armies remaining completely hidden in cover.

      Tor

  2. Failure rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kind of odd when I can 12 channels on my civilian model

    Of course, your civilian model probably fails 1% of the time, and wouldn't survive a day in a sandstorm, in part due to it's fragile electronics.

    The Military version, while only 5 channels, is probably much more robust then your puny little civilian model.

  3. Mil spec by isomeme · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Kind of odd when I can 12 channels on my civilian model (with admittedly lower spatial accuracy).
    I'd also imagine that yours would be unlikely to continue working if, say, dropped onto concrete from fifteen feet up, or if a bomb went off ten yards away from it, or if it took a glancing impact from a bullet. Say what you like about US military gear, the stuff is amazingly rugged. Ten year old tech that keeps working under battlefield conditions is far more valuable to a soldier than bleeding-edge tech that quits if it gets damp.
    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
  4. Re:GPS doesn't stop you getting lost. by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That doesn't help in rough country where the straight line path isn't the best.

    As the farmer said when asked for directions: "If I was you and trying to get there, I wouldn't start from here."

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  5. Exceed on windows, I bet. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My guess is that it's an X11 Unix application being displayed on a windows box running Exceed to make it into a virtual X terminal.

    (Yes Virginia, the dumb terminal is alive and well.)

    Said configuration is so common it's almost obscene. My first Job out of college was at one of Lockheed Martin's many branches. All of the REAL work was done on various flavours of Unix (AIX, HP-UX and some other IBM OS in our case, and some projects in the facility were expreimenting with Linux and BSD as alternatives (Main problem being, VA and the like don't exactly build their boxen to MILSPEC, HP and IBM were happy to do so.) Obviously, we needed a Unix environment to program computers that would be rinning Unix in the field. Makes sence, right?

    Problem being, as they said on Star Trek: "The buerocratic mentality is the only constant in the universe". And LMCO has a BIG one. Some big muckety-muck, a CIO, an IT director, or somesuch, had chosen Dell as the desktop vendor for our facility, gotten several score truckloads of the things at bulk rate, built an NT-centric IT staff and 'standard desktop configuration', and said "Thou shalt use windows on thy desktop!". No matter that windows is completely useless to engineers. He's got his Dell/windows empire, and he's going to lord over it. So what we had to do, is run Exceed on the things to open virtual X windows onto the real computers, on which our actual work was done. This was supposedly a pretty common situation at the rest of LMCO as well.

    In the course of doing latter jobs, and interviewing for others, I've discovered that this is stupidly common within other government contractors as well, and not uncommon outside. So I've little doubt that it's pretty common in the actual military as well.

    I can't even BEGIN to imagine just HOW many windows PCs are out there, complete with Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc. etc. etc., all those licenses doing nothing but burning money; when the only purpose they wind up serving is as a glorified dumb terminal.

    (PS. Oh yeah... it's not too hard to change the graphic on the start menu button, startup screen, or most other places, so that's no indication that it's not windows.)

    cya,
    john

    --
    Imagine all the people...