# Do section cdrs want/need a PDA with info from their own mini-UAV?



## The Bread Guy

Posted this to "What's Canada Buying?" thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89599/post-885690.html#msg885690
and sharing it here for discussion.

Short & sweet version:  DND is looking into a future where section commanders may carry a Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) or Nokia Internet Tablet to get information from their own tiny unmanned aerial vehicle.

On the plus side, I can see value in an extra set of "remote eyes".  On the minus side, though, it becomes another piece of hardware to take care of, keep track of and monitor (not to mention, potentially, another way for bosses prone to micromanagement to peek in on what the sections are up to).


----------



## DiamondDarryl

Sounds good in theory, but I have no doubts it would end up being another piece of kit stashed in some corner of the lav never to be used.


----------



## Cloud Cover

This was already done with a special BlackBerry 2 years ago for US DoD.  During testing, it was possible to mark information on maps and upload/share with others on the same network. You could also attach pictures etc to the location marker. Very slick. It had become possible to securely side channel GPS feeds with encrypted tactical data using elliptical curve, which the device could read, understand and display. Look for more of this to come out of the US only.


----------



## Fusaki

This is the way of the future.

It's just one more step in the downward diffusion of combined arms talked about in another thread here.  It's more a question of "when" than "if".

In the future I see something like this:  

An IFV with a built in firefinding radar and a UAV "launcher" similar in idea to a catapult used on aircraft carriers. On contact the crew commander hits a red button and mini UAV fires off a catapult enabled ramp off the top of the vehicle and makes it's way to the source of fire.

The UAV would also act as an RRB to relay comms in built up areas and have an IR spotlight bright enough to "highlight" enemy troop positions from the sky for viewing through NVGs.  Maybe one day munitions will be light enough that a weapon can be mounted on a mini UAV.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Keep in mind I'm a dirty tanker/recce (boooo) guy.
It's wonderful to have UAV controlled by someone else.However operating a UAV under contact while directing the fight would be a bit much.Let's take a look at SAS (situational awareness system)I learned that system inside and out.Only to find I may have been the only one.Then deployed found out it isnt even being used.

Wonderbread I usually agree with your comments however a mini UAV with little mini super rockets sounds great,however so does Tesla coils that respond to projectiles. :nod:

All I keep picturing is the "Hollywood" company discovery channel special with the thing cracked in pieces.

From my side of the combat arms fence,keep it with a dedicated (not in contact) group of people.Or if it is placed in a section wouldnt it be better placed with a junior member dedicated to the UAV.Someone who could stay in the back of the vehicle and use it.As the section commander is gonna be busy enough under contact to be flying a UAV IMHO.


----------



## Fusaki

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Let's take a look at SAS (situational awareness system)I learned that system inside and out.Only to find I may have been the only one.Then deployed found out it isnt even being used.



I'm familiar with the SAS as well, and took the LFC2IS crash course last fall to see it all (supposedly) come together.  I'll be the first to admit that the system as I saw it was not battle ready - for a number of reasons that shouldn't be discussed here.  But the concept is a good one.  Give the technology a few years to develop and SAS (or a system like it) will save lives.  

I see this as the same sort of thing.  I think UAVs for each section is a good idea.  Do we have the technology to make it work? Maybe not today, but what about 5 years from now?  A Pte today could be in a section with it's own armed UAV by the time he's a WO.  Like SAS, this concept of Mini UAVs is a good.  It's just a question of when the technology will catch up with the idea.



> From my side of the combat arms fence,keep it with a dedicated (not in contact) group of people.Or if it is placed in a section wouldnt it be better placed with a junior member dedicated to the UAV.Someone who could stay in the back of the vehicle and use it.As the section commander is gonna be busy enough under contact to be flying a UAV IMHO.



Why not?

The 10 man rifle section will have an IFV driver, IFV gunner, crew commander, 2 LMG gunners, 2 grenadiers, a section commander, and a "C2S" operator:

-A Sr Pte or Cpl who controls and integrates the UAV, voice/data transmissions, indirect fire and medivac, ect. It's one guy whose job is to co-ordinate the Command and Control Systems.  Give him his own mini-CP in the back of the carrier.

Sound like a lot for one guy? Maybe it is.  I'm not saying today's idea is perfect.  I'm just saying that this is where we _could_ be headed tomorrow.


----------



## vonGarvin

Call me cynical ("You're cynical, Technoviking!"), but I feel that technology isn't the answer.  We focus on this "fluff" at the expense of basic skills.  Our troops cannot shoot straight through no fault of their own, but now we have PDAs and UAVs and ABCs all over the place.

Dudes, war is simple: Find, Fix, Strike.  

OK, that is just a "bit" simplified, but we so often lose sight of the basics.  Just last week a guy was telling me about this arm-mounted PDA for section commanders so that they can see where their guys are.  I asked "why not turn your head left and right?"

Anyway, back to the dark ages I go...


----------



## X-mo-1979

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Why not?
> 
> The 10 man rifle section will have an IFV driver, IFV gunner, crew commander, 2 LMG gunners, 2 grenadiers, a section commander, and a "C2S" operator:
> 
> -A Sr Pte or Cpl who controls and integrates the UAV, voice/data transmissions, indirect fire and medivac, ect. It's one guy whose job is to co-ordinate the Command and Control Systems.  Give him his own mini-CP in the back of the carrier.
> 
> Sound like a lot for one guy? Maybe it is.  I'm not saying today's idea is perfect.  I'm just saying that this is where we _could_ be headed tomorrow.



Having dedicated UAV guy's back else where in a "safe" zone removes the pucker factor.I believe it's a lot more efficient if the lav commander is calling in brief requests to say KAF instead of in a tic directing his gunner and driver and trying to lay a young guy onto a target who is flying a UAV from a bouncing lav.

I understand your talking the future combat when we have all kinds of crazy kit.However from my view point I don't see it working under contact as well as a dedicated UAV overflight from a dedicated UAV control center.

Your C2S is sounding a whole lot like a FAC/FOO.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Call me cynical ("You're cynical, Technoviking!"), but I feel that technology isn't the answer.  We focus on this "fluff" at the expense of basic skills.  Our troops cannot shoot straight through no fault of their own, but now we have PDAs and UAVs and ABCs all over the place.
> 
> Dudes, war is simple: Find, Fix, Strike.
> 
> OK, that is just a "bit" simplified, but we so often lose sight of the basics.  Just last week a guy was telling me about this arm-mounted PDA for section commanders so that they can see where their guys are.  I asked "why not turn your head left and right?"
> 
> Anyway, back to the dark ages I go...



Couldnt agree more.I'm all for advancement in technology.however sometimes it get's a little too scifi for me.

Now a hunter killer site...that's a battle field advancement!MRS...


----------



## a_majoor

While this seems pretty novel for us, it is actually "behind the curve"

The IDF issues a receiver that allows section and platoon commanders (and vehicle commanders) to receive feed from UAV's and tactical helicopters, letting them look around the corner or to the next bound. The device is attached to the wrist like a big watch, I imagine vehicle crews velcro them to a handy spot inside the vehicle.

The Garmin RINO is a $400 item you can buy at Canadian Tire which is a GPS with full map display, a PRR type radio and incorporates a built in SAS by revealing the position of people calling in from their RINO to yours (very good for keeping track of section and platoon level operations).

These sorts of devices can be carried by section commanders without overly burdening them (in fact, a wrist watch type video receiver and Garmin RINO would remove the need to carry a 521 radio), and these functionalities can be incorporated into hardened "tablet" type computers with radio modules and VoIP sftware that allows them to be used as voice radios as well. Size/weight of a device that can replace a 521 radio would be similar to a Panasonic CF-28 laptop; I have seen devices with these capabilities at AUSA 2006 so this is not a far future scenario.


----------



## Fusaki

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Call me cynical ("You're cynical, Technoviking!"), but I feel that technology isn't the answer.  We focus on this "fluff" at the expense of basic skills.  Our troops cannot shoot straight through no fault of their own, but now we have PDAs and UAVs and ABCs all over the place.
> 
> Dudes, war is simple: Find, Fix, Strike.
> 
> OK, that is just a "bit" simplified, but we so often lose sight of the basics.  Just last week a guy was telling me about this arm-mounted PDA for section commanders so that they can see where their guys are.  I asked "why not turn your head left and right?"
> 
> Anyway, back to the dark ages I go...



For sure, but there's nothing to say that things can't be developed concurrently.

In my mind, Infantry soldiers need to develop The Art_ in the following order of importance:_

*Mindset, Tactics, Physical Fitness, and Equipment*

I've never been to officer skool in Gagetown, but I've been using this mantra as my own sort of _army philosophy_ to keep the important things in perspective.  

1)  Proper Mindset is the fundamental attribute that separates soldiers from non-soldiers.  It's about drive and motivation and being a hard motherfucker in even the direst of circumstances.  It's about a ruthless commitment to self-improvement, always moving forward, regardless of obstacles.  If an infantryman is nothing else, he'd better be tough.

2)  After that comes tactics, techniques, and procedures.  With the proper mindset and the proper knowledge, the most ill equipped soldiers have defeated otherwise superior forces throughout history.

3)  Then comes fitness, which allows the soldier to apply his mindset and tactics for longer periods without rest.

4)  And only after all that comes equipment, which is really only a supplement to the first three attributes and will never win wars on its own.

The thing is, these four attributes can and should be developed concurrently. We just need to be sure that we don't develop our "Soldier Attributes" in a lopsided way.  There's no reason why we can't develop ideas for section level UAVs, or talk at length about Tacvests Vs Chestrigs, provided that we're still going out to the field and givin'er in the mud and rain at 0-Dark-30.  As long as we're still doing the long, heavy marches and studying or developing TTPs, seeking out new and better equipment is important to helping us win wars more effectively.



> Having dedicated UAV guy's back else where in a "safe" zone removes the pucker factor.I believe it's a lot more efficient if the lav commander is calling in brief requests to say KAF instead of in a tic directing his gunner and driver and trying to lay a young guy onto a target who is flying a UAV from a bouncing lav.
> 
> I understand your talking the future combat when we have all kinds of crazy kit.However from my view point I don't see it working under contact as well as a dedicated UAV overflight from a dedicated UAV control center.



You're making strong points.  I think what we're really after is not necessarily a UAV being physically controlled by a guy in the section.  What we want is individual UAVs dedicated to support soldiers at the section and platoon level - the kind of stuff Thucydides is saying the IDF already has.



> Your C2S is sounding a whole lot like a FAC/FOO.



Yep.  I believe it's only a matter of time before there are so many armed UAVs in the sky that infantry Ptes are put on courses to qualify them on painting targets for Hellfires.  Infantry guys are already calling fire missions and directing apaches.  I'm not saying being a FOO/FAC is the same thing.  I'm just saying that this is the direction war is headed.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Yep.  I believe it's only a matter of time before there are so many armed UAVs in the sky that infantry Ptes are put on courses to qualify them on painting targets for Hellfires.  Infantry guys are already calling fire missions and directing apaches.  I'm not saying being a FOO/FAC is the same thing.  I'm just saying that this is the direction war is headed.



Roger that.
Quick thought however.Flying a UAV is going to have one guy in the section sitting out the battle.As well how will it work while dismounted?Suddenly the section is a cordon around the UAV pilot,making the advance to contact problematic.Suddenly a infantry section is constantly in a defensive role to protect it's advancing asset,the UAV.

As well think of the deconflicting that will have to go on causing delays in incoming fire,trying to coord between higher (platoon)who then has to report to company then higher.Having a asset at the bottom end of the spectrum will slow down the ability to drop munitions.

Not to mention radio's.Were gonna have to add two radio's to the back of the lav for the young PTE to use other net's to talk on supporting arms be it arty or CAS etc.As the C/C need's his radios for communicating within the platoon context.
Suddenly the Pte has more responsibility then the C/C or the section commander.

Food for thought.
(P.S I love good tech myself.)


----------



## vonGarvin

My point is this:
with all the gagedtry out there, we have lost sight on making sure that our soldiers of all trades can shoot, move and communicate _at the basic level_.  I'm not opposed to such things; however, one has to weigh the pros and cons.  If we introduce UAV training into the system, then what gets kicked out?  It's a zero-sum game, and nobody is going to increase training time.  So, in the end, stuff that is seen as "archaic" gets tossed aside in favour of the new fangled stuff.

An example.  On BMOQ-L (formerly known as CAP, and Phase 2 before that), GPS training is making people really good at using GPS.  It has come at a cost: they cannot navigate anymore.  And I don't mean with map and compass, I mean navigation.  Sure, they may know that they are at FL 123 456, but they can't find it on the map, and invariably are lost in spite of having very accurate information as to where they are.  Heck, they can barely tell the difference between a re-entrant and a saddle.  Even if they were staring at one.


----------



## Fusaki

> Quick thought however.Flying a UAV is going to have one guy in the section sitting out the battle.As well how will it work while dismounted?Suddenly the section is a cordon around the UAV pilot,making the advance to contact problematic.Suddenly a infantry section is constantly in a defensive role to protect it's advancing asset,the UAV.



I should have been clearer.  I agree with you that controlling a UAV may be too much for a guy in the back of a LAV. I don't see any reason why your suggestion that the UAVs be controlled from locations farther rear would not work.

All I'd really like to see - one way or another - is infantry platoons with integral UAV assets.  I don't think it matters too much where that UAV is controlled from and by who.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> My point is this:
> with all the gagedtry out there, we have lost sight on making sure that our soldiers of all trades can shoot, move and communicate _at the basic level_.  I'm not opposed to such things; however, one has to weigh the pros and cons.  If we introduce UAV training into the system, then what gets kicked out?  It's a zero-sum game, and nobody is going to increase training time.  So, in the end, stuff that is seen as "archaic" gets tossed aside in favour of the new fangled stuff.



Maybe the ideal is something like this:

Imagine a system where UAVs maintain 24hour coverage on a given AO, but there exists a system where the troops on the ground can establish a voice and data link directly with the pilot.  Similar to the way cellphones search for the closest tower, think of a device that would find the closest UAV and establish a link with it.  The device would also function as a viewer for the UAV's camera and a laser to mark targets.  Once a TIC is declared, that UAV belongs to the platoon/section commander on the ground.

This way, the infantry gets quasi-integral UAV assets without overburdening the guys on the ground with overly technical equipment.


----------



## MikeL

Instead of making a UAV a Section/Platoon asset why not have them in the Coy HQ with a UAV Controller Det?  When a Pl or Coy goes on a an Op the UAV Det roles with the Pl HQ or Coy TAC CP. When a TIC happens UAV gets sent up, or the UAV flys over the Pl/Coy AO.


----------



## Fusaki

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Instead of making a UAV a Section/Platoon asset why not have them in the Coy HQ with a UAV Controller Det?  When a Pl or Coy goes on a an Op the UAV Det roles with the Pl HQ or Coy TAC CP. When a TIC happens UAV gets sent up, or the UAV flys over the Pl/Coy AO.



X-Mo brings up a good point here:



> As well think of the deconflicting that will have to go on causing delays in incoming fire,trying to coord between higher (platoon)who then has to report to company then higher.Having a asset at the bottom end of the spectrum will slow down the ability to drop munitions.



Not being a UAV expert, I'm under the impression that UAVs operated by the company would have to be of the smaller variety and therefore fly lower.  The larger Predators and Reapers fly higher, so I don't think the FOO has to worry about deconflicting them with fire missions.  

Predators and Reapers are pretty good at what they do.  Why would the company tote around a less capable mini-UAV when they could gain all the benefits of the full sized version by just figuring out a convenient way to communicate with its pilot?


----------



## Cleared Hot

It's an interesting idea but like anything else the real answer is mission specific.  Can you imagine going on a BG op and having every section in the BG with their own UAV?  There would be so many of those things flying around it would be silly, not to mention most likely very innefficient and dangerous.  At some point a commander needs to make a decision and have things happen with speed and aggression, not wait while all Sgts get to fly their remote control airplanes and decide what they are going to do.  If on the otherhand the section is tasked with an independent op or patrol they should be cut the proper resources i.e. a FAC.  A PDA to receive images or data is not a bad idea and already exists to a very limited extent in Canada but there is no need for everyone to have their own UAV.

I'm trying to keep this on point and trying very hard not to respond to some of the comments starting to delve into CAS, ISR etc so I'm not going to go into how BG HQs don't use their UAV/air/avn assets properly as it is or about CCA vs. CAS.


----------



## Fusaki

> I'm trying to keep this on point and trying very hard not to respond to some of the comments starting to delve into CAS, ISR etc so I'm not going to go into how BG HQs don't use their UAV/air/avn assets properly as it is or about CCA vs. CAS.



Cleared Hot,

I don't want you or anyone else to have the impression I'm claiming any sort of knowledge on the subject of CAS and stuff like that.  After a 5 minute peruse of your posting history I know about 20 times as much about FACs as I did this morning - and that still doesn't say much.

I am curious to know what you think of this question though:

What does the future hold for the relationship between UAVs and the soldiers they support?


----------



## OldSolduer

Here's my take:
A section comd has more to worry about than a UAV or a PDA. He has a battle to fight, a section to command. He can't be watching a PDA or a UAV or whatever while firefight is being won.
Let the Coy take care of UAVS. Not the Pl and definitely not the section. 
Sections aren't mini battalions, and you can only carry so much on your body or your vehicle before room runs out.


----------



## Cleared Hot

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Cleared Hot,
> 
> I don't want you or anyone else to have the impression I'm claiming any sort of knowledge on the subject of CAS and stuff like that.  After a 5 minute peruse of your posting history I know about 20 times as much about FACs as I did this morning - and that still doesn't say much.
> 
> I am curious to know what you think of this question though:
> 
> What does the future hold for the relationship between UAVs and the soldiers they support?



While unfortunately my crystal ball is in the shop, I will try to answer without it.  The question you pose is the crux of the whole issue - relationships.  C2 relationships, personal relationships, you name it.  I know the system as it is supposed to work and I believe there are sufficient resources to do what needs to be done.  What is missing is the education (and perhaps will) at certain levels to do it.

As a rule we do not expect sections to conduct independent ops.  Coys sure, and that is why we doctrinally give them FOO/FACs.  That said, I have seen FACs attached to organizations smaller than section size because the op called for it.  Enough said.  I also firmly believe that the person who best has a feel for what is happening on the ground is the guy on the ground not someone back in a TOC watching it on TV.  I don't care how many bars or leaves he is wearing.  Nothing like good old crack-thump to tell you where the enemy is shooting at you from, roughly how far away he is and even what type of weapon he is using.  But we have gotten into the mentality we all feared where generals can position individual riflemen by watching it on TV.  An anecdote to illustrate the mentality...

I recently got into a debate with someone.  My position was (and is) that if a Coy was in contact on the ground and the BG had an asset (UAV) and that Coy OC had a qualified FAC, then the BG should cut the asset to the Coy for the sake of immediate responsiveness.  If there were two Coys in contact and only one asset, then the BG could keep it because with multiple Coys in contact it was now a BG fight.  Actually (for a number of reasons) I think we should stick with the concept of the CO's main effort and cut the UAV to that Coy but I knew that was a bridge too far.  In any event, his response was "I don't care if it is a platoon in contact if it is in my battlespace it is a BG fight."  Okay, technically I get that but sometimes the best way to support your subordinate commander is give him the resources and let him get on with his job.

When lower level commanders are not getting the info they need in a timely manner even if it is through the best intentions of the higher HQ, the answer seems to be to give them their own dedicated asset.  But as has been pointed out those assets come with a cost be it trading off firepower or personnel, weight, speed, responsiveness, training etc.  That is just wasteful when the info could be had by being a bit more willing to have the appropriate assets controlled at the appropriate levels.

The technology is there, whatever you can envision.  For a simplistic example, the artillery school used to mount video cameras to hobby store R/C aircraft, it's not that hard.  Will Canada buy it? I don't know, I've stopped trying to figure out our procurement system a long time ago.  But as I said, I do believe we can do what needs to be done with what we have/have access to.  Some of us have been doing this for a while and understand how things are supposed to work but for some it is new and they try to figure it out for themselves which results in inefficiencies which result in unnecessary "fixes".  What will actually happen I'm not sure, what I hope will happen is that as we get used to working with these assets we settle into more of a comfort level that lets us do it right.  What I fear may happen is that we may ignore the advice of experts which will solidify the lessons we think we are learning become solidified as the norm.

I doubt that's what you were looking for but I won't comment on the technology because it's already all out there.  You asked about relationships... the UAV is as responsive as we let it be.


----------



## Loachman

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I think what we're really after is not necessarily a UAV being physically controlled by a guy in the section.  What we want is individual UAVs dedicated to support soldiers at the section and platoon level - the kind of stuff Thucydides is saying the IDF already has.



If you're looking for that level of support, then you are looking for a TWUAV (Teeny Weeny UAV) operated by someone at that level.

It would have extremely limited range, perhaps just a few hundred metres, and extremely limited endurance, perhaps fifteen-thirty minutes. The motor would be electric. It would have a simple daylight-only camera, and be hand-launched. Max altitude would be a couple of hundred feet. This is hobby-level technology. Forget armament. Something that size would not even be able to carry a single-shot .22 cal pistol. It would be useful for such things as checking dead ground, roof tops, and compounds etcetera prior to an assault or at any other critical time.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I think what we're really after is not necessarily a UAV being physically controlled by a guy in the section.  What we want is individual UAVs dedicated to support soldiers at the section and platoon level.



Something is only truly "dedicated" to the level which controls it. Unless that is the section, anything controlled at a higher level will not necessarily be available when the section comd wants it, or could be taken away at any time.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Yep.  I believe it's only a matter of time before there are so many armed UAVs in the sky that infantry Ptes are put on courses to qualify them on painting targets for Hellfires.



Armament equals weight. Armed UAVs are, by necessity, then, large and expensive, and you're not going to see "so many...in the sky" in your lifetime. There is still a trade-off between fuel (endurance and range) and firepower - typically one or two Hellfire, good for targets of opportunity. Once those are expended, the UAV reverts to being an ISR asset. Armament is not a huge requirement, as there is usually something else better able to deal with any target found.

As for rank, Sperwer Air Vehicle Operators (AVOs) and Payload Operators (POs) were mostly Air Defence Gunners and Bombardiers, several with rather little time in.



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Quick thought however.Flying a UAV is going to have one guy in the section sitting out the battle.



I don't see that. This would be launched, used, and recovered as a short-term recce means, the section commander using sort of airborne binoculars to scope out a likely enemy or important dead ground that cannot be seen line-of-site.



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> As well how will it work while dismounted?



Like any RC model aircraft. One guy operates it via a small hand-held transmitter with a small PDA-type monitor. A second guy could hand-launch it and then go back to something else useful, but that may not be required.



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Suddenly the section is a cordon around the UAV pilot,making the advance to contact problematic.Suddenly a infantry section is constantly in a defensive role to protect it's advancing asset,the UAV.



It would not, and could not, be used on the move as far as I can see, due to its limitations, anyway.



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> As well think of the deconflicting that will have to go on causing delays in incoming fire,trying to coord between higher (platoon)who then has to report to company then higher.Having a asset at the bottom end of the spectrum will slow down the ability to drop munitions.



What deconfliction, what delays? Reporting would be like any other report going up the line. The section sees something of interest, and calls in a grid and a description.



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Not to mention radio's.Were gonna have to add two radio's to the back of the lav for the young PTE to use other net's to talk on supporting arms be it arty or CAS etc.As the C/C need's his radios for communicating within the platoon context. Suddenly the Pte has more responsibility then the C/C or the section commander.



This could be launched and controlled from the back of a LAV, but not likely on the move. The operator would need to be located close to the sect comd and able to communicate verbally. The operator would have no responsibility beyond controlling his TWUAV. Direction is given and decisions are made by the sect comd.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I agree with you that controlling a UAV may be too much for a guy in the back of a LAV.



I don't. Kids can operate this level of technology.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I don't see any reason why your suggestion that the UAVs be controlled from locations farther rear would not work.



I can see communications being a little clumsy for work at that level of detail and immediacy.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> All I'd really like to see - one way or another - is infantry platoons with integral UAV assets.  I don't think it matters too much where that UAV is controlled from and by who.



Platoon is probably a more practical level, but it still needs to be directly controlled from whatever level it's dedicated to.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Imagine a system where UAVs maintain 24hour coverage on a given AO, but there exists a system where the troops on the ground can establish a voice and data link directly with the pilot.



Let's not dilute the term "Pilot" too much...

UAVs broadcast their video and telemetry. All that you need is a simple receiver and monitor in range and line-of-site. Comms is another matter. Sperwer had an onboard radio for communication between the Ground Control Station (GCS) and Air Traffic Control (ATC). Frequencies were limited to that band, but a similar system could be used, I suppose.

Present UAV coverage is more limited than you think, and it's a big AO. Don't get overly optimistic.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Imagine a system where UAVs maintain 24hour coverage on a given AO, but there exists a system where the troops on the ground can establish a voice and data link directly with the pilot.  Similar to the way cellphones search for the closest tower, think of a device that would find the closest UAV and establish a link with it.



I don't see that as manageable.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Once a TIC is declared, that UAV belongs to the platoon/section commander on the ground.



Higher would probably disagree, especially with the type and number of systems presently available. That's why anything that is going to operate at and for the lower levels needs to be owned by them and useless to higher.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> This way, the infantry gets quasi-integral UAV assets without overburdening the guys on the ground with overly technical equipment.



Again, the type of equipment suitable for section/platoon level is hobby-level stuff.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Not being a UAV expert,



Me neither, and I do not ever want to be. I did do a tour on Sperwer, however.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'm under the impression that UAVs operated by the company would have to be of the smaller variety and therefore fly lower.  The larger Predators and Reapers fly higher,



Yes. Altitude separation is one method of co-ordination and de-confliction.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> so I don't think the FOO has to worry about deconflicting them with fire missions.



That's not his job anyway.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Predators and Reapers are pretty good at what they do.  Why would the company tote around a less capable mini-UAV when they could gain all the benefits of the full sized version by just figuring out a convenient way to communicate with its pilot?



Artillery is pretty good at what it does. Why would the company tote around less capable rifles and machineguns, when...

There are not enough Predators and Reapers and Herons. They are higher-level assets, have more capabilities than the section/platoon needs, and would be wasted working regularly for that level. Sections and platoons are not going to get their own F15s, either.

When something significant is going on, either or both of those will be in the area - but still not working for the section or platoon.



			
				Cleared Hot said:
			
		

> I'm not going to go into how BG HQs don't use their UAV/air/avn assets properly as it is or about CCA vs. CAS.



I think that I'm doing a marvellous job of avoiding going off on a side-rant about that for several hours.

And I agree pretty much word-for-word with Cleared Hot's last post.

Any discrepancies are likely due to this being a rather nebulous concept, as far as I see this discussion right now.


----------



## a_majoor

Let me clarify one thing right now, the IDF has issued technology that allows section and vehicle commanders to receive feed from designated assets (such as helicopters or UAV's flying overwatch), but the person on the ground isn't in control of the asset. I'm not clear if they can request the operator zoom in on a point of interest (although it seems likely), so the commander gives assets down to what he sees as the main effort.

Ubertiny UAV's would be used as "binos" to look at dead ground and rooftops, and would probably considered disposable as well.

An alternative idea to provide this capability at company or platoon level would be to adopt FOG-M (Gill/Spike ATGM) and use the missile to get video feed. The bonus is they can attack a target the moment it is identified.

Side note; iPods and PDA's can be used to replace field aid memoires, another plus.


----------



## vonGarvin

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Side note; iPods and PDA's can be used to replace field aid memoires, another plus.


This is a key side note.  Why carry around a massive amount of paper with check-lists, etc, when you can have that information stored digitally in your watch, accessible at any place, at any time.


So, back on target.  Section Level UAVs means that a battle group of three companies will have to sustain/maintain 27 of these things.  As stated in Thucydides' last post, it is about communication vice operation.  If I can use a Dick Tracy watch (complete with my Aide Memoires and references within, including maps, digital orders, etc) to "see" what that Reaper above me can see, and I also have the ability to talk with my highers to request it to look at something for me, then why not?  I'm sure that with the laws of probability being what they are (combined with our time-honoured tradition of not taking war all that seriously and sending people away from battle to our main effort: HLTA), I doubt that BG HQ will have to deal with 27 simultaneous requests for information.  Heck, platoons and companies will filter info up _as they should_.  But, if "something" happens and 21A needs to see that cross roads, just up ahead, then why not?  

As stated, the technology is there, the bandwidth is there and we can have it now.  So all that to say, let's not have armadas of TWUAVs gallavanting about the battlespace.  Let's just make info more readily available, with most (naturally) being on "receive" and only on "send" when the situation calls for it.


----------



## a_majoor

In terms of communications, we need to work more on a "network" model rather than a "telegraph" model (our comms are evolved from telegraph systems designed to run 19th century rail lines).

If we considered an AOR as a "box" and every system inside connected to a robust ISP (we will leave the technology out of this for now; lets assume section commanders, vehicle crews and UAV's flying in the box all use handwaveium). Then people in the AOR would simply "log in" and select the view they need or want.

If this is the commander's main effort, or circumstances change (i.e. a TIC develops inside the box), the commander can assign more resources to that box, including extra bandwidth, more sensor platforms and eventually, more shooters. Commanders at higher levels can and should "listen in", but refrain from entering the net and micro managing  the the troops

as per the micro UAV:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/24303/?nlid=2462&a=f



> *Micro-vehicle Imitates the Winged Maple Seed*
> The new "robo-seed" flies using just a single propeller.
> By Kristina Grifantini
> The monocopter developed at the University of Maryland.
> 
> Growing up, I used to toss up Maple seeds and watch as these "helicopters" slowly spiraled to the ground.
> 
> Now a team at the University of Maryland's Clark School of Engineering has created a small, one-winged, remote-controlled device that mimics the maple seed's graceful flight mechanics
> 
> Researchers have aimed to make micro air vehicles for some time, often taking inspiration from nature, such as dragonflies or houseflies, to design small, efficient devices. Such low-powered micro vehicles could be used in surveillance, search-and-rescue, and communications applications.
> 
> The new "robo-seed" can fly and hover stably using just its single twisting propeller. The researchers accomplished this by separating the carefully-shaped wing and body components of the device, allowing them to control the wing's tilt (and the size of the helix-shaped descent) without throwing off the flyer's balance.
> 
> According to the university's press release, the robo-seed can not only take off from the ground and hover in air, but it can also perform controlled flight and hover when tossed from an aircraft or by hand.


----------



## Loachman

It requires an awful lot of bandwidth to provide quality imagery all over the place. The Rover system permits ground commanders to receive imagery directly from an airborne source. All that they need is the frequency. Sperwer was not Rover-compatible. Almost everything else is.


----------



## GnyHwy

The idea of having a UAV at section level may be a bit absurd unless that sect has a specific task.  As far as 27 UAV's in TF.  That's also crazy.  We had 3 dedicated MUAV dets during my roto and couldn't even keep the 3 of them in the air. UAV's usually break while landing and have an extensive maintenance plan, not to mention resupply for broken parts (our TF's biggest UAV headache).  The best maintainers we have ATT are hobbiests.

The idea of a PDA at section is most certainly viable.  Not for Sect Cmdr to watch TV as he has for important things to do but, whether it be PDA or a microlight radio,  the advantage to having real time blue SA is extremely important.  Not necessarily for the Sect but for higher HQ's, and NOT for micromanaging.

For higher level assets i.e. CAS, Arty, Pred to hit targets particularily when they're danger close, a ton of time is wasted trying to figure out where the hell everyone is.  Having that immediate blue SA will decrease the time needed to safley engage with higher assets.

Ex. If an Arty engagement takes 10min to get bullets down range, likely 80% of the time was spent figuring out where friendlies are at and doing the appropriate risk estimate.

Realtime Blue SA would be the most important reason in my mind to have PDAs/microlight at the Sect/Det level.


----------



## vonGarvin

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> The idea of having a UAV at section level may be a bit absurd unless that sect has a specific task.  As far as 27 UAV's in TF.  That's also crazy.  We had 3 dedicated MUAV dets during my roto and couldn't even keep the 3 of them in the air. UAV's usually break while landing and have an extensive maintenance plan, not to mention resupply for broken parts (our TF's biggest UAV headache).  The best maintainers we have ATT are hobbiests.
> 
> The idea of a PDA at section is most certainly viable.  Not for Sect Cmdr to watch TV as he has for important things to do but, whether it be PDA or a microlight radio,  the advantage to having real time blue SA is extremely important.  Not necessarily for the Sect but for higher HQ's, and NOT for micromanaging.
> 
> For higher level assets i.e. CAS, Arty, Pred to hit targets particularily when they're danger close, a ton of time is wasted trying to figure out where the hell everyone is.  Having that immediate blue SA will decrease the time needed to safley engage with higher assets.
> 
> Ex. If an Arty engagement takes 10min to get bullets down range, likely 80% of the time was spent figuring out where friendlies are at and doing the appropriate risk estimate.
> 
> Realtime Blue SA would be the most important reason in my mind to have PDAs/microlight at the Sect/Det level.


SA (Blue, Red, Brown, White) is all important, I agree; however, micromanaging is what comes with SA to this level.  I understand the concept of timely sitreps to higher is sometimes seen as a "drag" by the forward dudes; however, it's *that * important. 

So, short term, just employ the training and doctrine we have, and stop looking for wheels to reinvent (not directed at you, Gny), and for the long term, have "something" that can have virtually real-time SA available for "pull" from higher as required, as opposed to "all the time".  Too many WAAAAY up there folks (*cough* CEFCOM *cough*) would continually looking down several levels of command, and begin to query why x section was at grid y at time z.


----------



## SeanNewman

A Sect Comd having some sort of kit like the magic watch that can watch BG-level feeds is one thing...but it will be a heckuva long time (if ever) before you see a section launching and controlling their own.

It proved to be too much hassle just to get them at the Coy level, let alone platoon, let alone section.

There's all sorts of airspace deconfliction to take care of that the Sect Comd just doesn't have time for; you can't just launch these things in the air willy nilly because you want to look at something.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from CP:


> Don't expect them to say "Hasta la vista, baby," but the robotic armoured vehicles and pilotless aircraft being developed by Canada's military scientists may one day be able to think for themselves.
> 
> The aim of the project by Canada's defence research branch, launched last fall, is to improve on the current generation of remote-controlled devices designed for the battlefield.
> 
> It may sound like something from the Terminator films, but defence scientists say what they're doing is a long way from the world envisioned by the science fiction action flicks that made California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a household name.
> 
> Franklin Wong, who leads the project at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier, Que., says the vehicles under study are not meant for combat but rather surveillance.
> 
> "That's a very important capability that we're looking for," Wong said in a recent interview.
> 
> "Many of our projects (at Defence Research Canada) are geared towards the surveillance aspect."
> 
> Whether these robotic vehicles should eventually be armed is an ethical debate for policy-makers and leaders, he added ....


----------



## Brutus

Meh. I am of the belief that firefights are won with speed, aggression, and superior tactics. I can see this being really useful to a Sect Cdr pre-step off, but I think it's more of a liability once contact is made.

On a seperate note, could I trade it for fresh rats and an extra hours' rack?


----------



## daftandbarmy

I have participated in, and set up, a variety of operations where units launched successfully while giuded by a manned, covert OP providing overwatch. Why not use a UAV instead? 

Excellent idea IMHO. Bloody OPs are a nightmare to put into place and keep covert (and resupply) in areas with a savvy enemy population roaming about (e.g., Bravo 20).

It also saves people having to poop in their rucksacks, eat cold for a week and come in from the field pissing blood because they've been lying down for several days - stop the insanity!


----------



## SeanNewman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ...It also saves people having to poop in their rucksacks...



I have humped my share of kit too, so I know where you're coming from, but one can not replace the other.  The biggest difference is the time vs quality aspect.  In your example where you send an OP out for a few days, you are getting a few days' worth of info.  If you bring a UAV for a few days, you are going to get a few hours of coverage.  Yes it might be from a better aerial vantage point, but you'll only ever get a few hours (at most) flight time out of the thing at once.

And for the foreseeable future (until it is ultralight and solar) the weight trade off is going to be nil anyway because someone will still have to carry the thing, plus the control station, plus the fuel, etc.

But none of this answers the part about airspace deconfliction I brought up above.  The troops never see this part on the ground, but every single NATO-launched anything from UAVs to Helos to Fast Air to artillery shells all have to be kept track of to ensure none of them smash into each other.

If two UAVs smash into each other, now you've got to go send a patrol out to get it.  Worse though, if a UAV hits a helo carrying troops it's a tragedy.  

It's not like on COD MW2 where you pull out your laptop and that's all there is to it.  

Even when the Coys (briefly) had them, there was all sort of 2IC work going on in the background requesting airspace at grids X to Y and altitude Z.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I have participated in, and set up, a variety of operations where units launched successfully while giuded by a manned, covert OP providing overwatch. Why not use a UAV instead?
> 
> Excellent idea IMHO. Bloody OPs are a nightmare to put into place and keep covert (and resupply) in areas with a savvy enemy population roaming about (e.g., Bravo 20).
> 
> It also saves people having to poop in their rucksacks, eat cold for a week and come in from the field pissing blood because they've been lying down for several days - stop the insanity!



I hear what you are saying, but I will offer a counter.  I have working with UAVs of various stripes on both operations and exercises.  UAVs are very useful, but manned OPs or patrols on a point recce give the commander a reliable means of obtaining the information that he needs.  UAVs are often unavailable for any number of reasons.  Recce soldiers (armoured or infantry) can get the job done in any conditions and also give that "man on the ground" view of the situation.  There is indeeda risk, but sending in the troops to conduct the operation being supported is also risky.  You need to assess if the risk is worth the payoff.


----------



## a_majoor

Rather than get wrapped around the axle over the means (i.e. a micro UAV, direct feed from a geostationary satellite, etc.) we should step back one and think of what capability we actually want.

A section commander needs a means of quickly checking out potential danger areas without sacrificing his troops or his options (being pinned down by enemy fire makes it pretty hard to manouevre or find an advantagious position. I have seen camera/transmitter rigs that are fired from a 40mm M-203 or similar grenade launcher, pop up a few hundred metres and dangle from a parachute for no more than five minutes (in ideal conditions), which seems like a good means of checking a piece of dead ground or suspect compound that binos, "Charlie team" or map study can't cover. This changes the onus from the section commander being a slave to the UAV to giving the section commander instant access to highly perishable information when he needs it.

UAV's seem to be higher level assets simply based on the amount of area they can cover (a Platoon commander can get a rapid overview of a square kilometer whjen plotting a platoon attack, Company commanders with access to higher level assets can view correspondingly larger areas). At this point, if there is a means to get the feed, cameras and imaging devices on air assets might serve the purpose better. Quick, dedicated flights might be best handled by a FOG-M, which is under operator control, and as a bonus can prosecute an identified target right away.


----------



## SeanNewman

Thuc,

You bring up a good point that the Sect Comd doesn't necessarily need control of the UAV (or whatever it is), but just having a feed from a higher-controlled asset on his wrist may be a good start.

People at DLR are actually more aware of a soldier's weight burden than they usually get credit for, and they know that there is currently a problem with more and more systems being added and nothing taken away (multiple radios, multiple batteries, multiple optics, etc).

You will see a very difficult soldier in 20 years.


----------



## NL_engineer

Well I personally think that a sect controlled UAV is just more weight and problems.  BUT having a screen that can revive live video feeds form the air assets in the area would help.  Yes as a sect comm you loose the control, but it still gives him/her a birds eye view of the sounding area, route, etc.  Plus if you need to get a better view of say a compound, you could request it over the radio.

Edited cause my "E" key didn't want to work :


----------



## Journeyman

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> ....view of the sounding area, *rout*, etc.


Historically, section commanders have tended to have armchair seats at a rout  ;D


[/pedantry]


----------



## SeanNewman

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Plus if you need to get a better view of say a compound, you could request it over the radio.



And I think that's really the most practical way to look at it.  You still have your little wrist-type PDA that shows everyone's position on the map and a feed from the UAV, but then you can ask something like "I need to see the south side of building X" and then people in a controlled environment can take care of the actual piloting and airspace deconfliction of the asset.

That way the Sgt gets what he needs but he isn't pestered by anything else and at any time he can give directions or shoot without worrying about being a pilot, too.  

The benefit would also be that with someone else controlling the asset, the could focus on the big picture with all of the other assets in the air and then say "23B we're now pushing you a feed of X 500m to your east moving toward you".

So that way he just gets the asset when required and he isn't burdened with it the rest of the time.  If he's about to turn a blind corner he can use it, about to cross the line of departure he can use it, etc...but at any time he can focus on immediate things more important to him.


----------



## GnyHwy

Bring back the Heavy Wpns Det.  Make them 2x as big and a lot of these issues will go away.


----------



## OldSolduer

How about an IPad.....just sayin.,.,..


----------



## PanaEng

A little bump with this article:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tailoring-smartphone-tech-to-the-battlefield/article1647157/

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

This may seem off topic but it isn't (at least I don't think so).  The Bn Gp deployed to Huntsville for the G8 conducted essentially a defensive op.  That being said, one of the tools in the tool bag that would have been incredibly useful would have been the mini UAV.  Given the nature of the terrain, the threat, and the tasks assigned, the mini-UAV feeding directly back to Coy, Pl and even sect locations would have certainly enabled the force.


----------



## Grunt_031

We tried this very concept in 2004/2005 in Fort Benning with 3VP. We utilized and number of experimental PDA configurations and used micro UAV (remote control planes hooked into a WIFI network) It was pretty crude but an intresting concept.  The picture was very rough and bumpy and the Micro UAV was pushed around by wind and heat currents.  Better footage came from the predator footage that was recorded and transmitte to the PDA.

http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc48/p524752.pdf

http://www.summitconnects.com/Articles_Columns/PDF_Documents/200510_02.pdf


----------



## OldSolduer

And as I've said before, the section has enough to worry about. A  mini UAV doesn't belong in a section. The section commander has troops to worry about, enemy to worry about plus numerous other things.
Besides, who will carry all this kit?


----------



## 40below

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Besides, who will carry all this kit?



Sigs. They're used to it. >


----------



## OldSolduer

40below said:
			
		

> Sigs. They're used to it. >



Haha....yes good idea!!


----------



## Sig_Des

I'm personally a fan of the use of a rover feed in an advance CP setting, with the Section communicating where they want observation. Worked well enough for us when we were out and about and wanted eyes on something.



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Haha....yes good idea!!



I have an answer for this, but it's innappropriate of me to offer suggestions on what to do to your hat on this public forum. I don't want to have to carry that extra **** !!  ;D

BTW, Jimmy says to say hi to Drummy.


----------



## OldSolduer

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I'm personally a fan of the use of a rover feed in an advance CP setting, with the Section communicating where they want observation. Worked well enough for us when we were out and about and wanted eyes on something.
> 
> I have an answer for this, but it's innappropriate of me to offer suggestions on what to do to your hat  on this public forum. I don't want to have to carry that extra **** !!  ;D
> 
> BTW, Jimmy says to say hi to Drummy.



I'll pass that along. No doubt he'll say hello back!! as for my hat......LOL ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

A slight variation on the mUAV theme:  how do we make a tiny UAV chopper easier to fly (even fly on its own for a bit) so it's easier to use as an extra set of eyes for dismounted troops?  This, from MERX:


> .... Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) - Suffield, Medicine Hat, Alberta, requires a contract to develop navigation and control algorithms enabling a small commercial off-the-shelf rotorcraft UAV (Draganfly X8) to execute simple autonomous behaviours thereby reducing the operator's control burden. To this end, an 'autonomy package' that will subsume and build upon the sensing and control functions provided by the UAV's existing autopilot will be developed. The integration of the autonomy package with the autopilot will enable the provision of additional capabilities required for autonomous operation ....



Here's the Draganfly X8






.

More in the Statement of Work attached.


----------



## aesop081

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> This may seem off topic but it isn't (at least I don't think so).  The Bn Gp deployed to Huntsville for the G8 conducted essentially a defensive op.  That being said, one of the tools in the tool bag that would have been incredibly useful would have been the mini UAV.  Given the nature of the terrain, the threat, and the tasks assigned, the mini-UAV feeding directly back to Coy, Pl and even sect locations would have certainly enabled the force.



I know i am late responding to this one but, the last thing that the G8/G20 airspace needed was a MUAV. The AO was saturated with airborne ISR assets and the feeds from those aircraft was available to the HQ/TACP/RCMP and could be made available to any unit of the ground with a ROVER. There were also many legal issues that we, CF ISR aircraft, faced, that would have cause any FMV feeds to be unavailable to troops on the ground. I was on one of those assets beaming FMV.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

The feeds only came into the CP so were not so useful to the Sect Comd on the ground.  Also, no Rovers were offered to us.  The TACP did a great job for the Bn Gp HQ but that's were the FMV stopped.  The terrain for the Sect Comd was complex.  Dense woods, terrain changes, close country, large expanses to cover, multiple routes into the AO.  Further, movement on the ground was restricted.  Patrols could only move with LEA if they were available.  So, had the Sect Comds, Pl Comds or Coy Comds had access to their own feeds, observation coverage would have been more complete.  I was one of those assets on the ground.


----------



## aesop081

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> So, had the Sect Comds, Pl Comds or Coy Comds had access to their own feeds, observation coverage would have been more complete.



I understand that. The point was that the product was available but for whatever reason it was not pushed down at the lower levels. A dedicated section level MUAV would simply have added to what i consider to be an airspace deconfliction headache due to the large number of air assets operating there already. The legal issues surrounding CF-provided ISR would also have limited the utility of such an assets the way it limited other CF aircraft. If you are interested, i can PM you about those legalities.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I understand that. The point was that the product was available but for whatever reason it was not pushed down at the lower levels. A dedicated section level MUAV would simply have added to what i consider to be an airspace deconfliction headache due to the large number of air assets operating there already. The legal issues surrounding CF-provided ISR would also have limited the utility of such an assets the way it limited other CF aircraft. If you are interested, i can PM you about those legalities.



Geez, you wouldn't want a MCpl accessing the same information as a General or you'd have the troops starting to think and act above their 'station', eh wot?


----------



## GnyHwy

Layered for altitude is the quick and maybe incomplete answer but, I do believe the BG needs an MUAV/SUAV.  As for the MUAV,  unless the Army is prepared to beef up the the Btln Hvy Wpns/support, the Inf couldn't manage this equipment (minimum 30 pers for a Btln UAV Plt).  Further, after seeing testing of the mini equipment available, it's probably not quite what they're looking for anyway.  Mini airframe and the locating devices they can carry are not quite there yet.

Back to the BG.  The MUAV can carry some valuable sensors and normally it would need to be cut down to the Coy.  I understand what Aviator has said about higher info being available but, the timeliness of that info tho the troops on the ground is not good.

The immediate problem with low level UAVs is deconflicting Helos and Arty, which is why we have a TACP and FACs on the ground.

In summary, a Sect Cmdr UAV (MUAV) is not feasible nor valuable ATT but,  BG and even Coy UAV (SUAV) is very valuable in my mind.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Further to this:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90008/post-989225.html#msg989225
DRDC's also looking for someone to do research on how to land these little spy choppers on stationary and moving landing sites.

Statement of Work attached or available here.


----------



## GnyHwy

These micro-machines we speak are certainly in development and absolutely deserve attention but, reality will always kick you in the face.  At some point a decision will be made.  Do we want rifleman or human activated sensors? 

Rifleman is my answer and I will go out on a limb, and say that most Btln Comds will say the same. 

My world, the Artillery takes this very seriously and will continue to develop this topic.

This maybe better suited for Bde/BG Recce, SOF or Coy Hvy Wpns Team but, as for the 30-40 minimum that would have to be properly trained within a Btln, IMO this is not achievable in any of our futures.


----------



## daftandbarmy

How does that battle drill thing go again? Reaction to effective enemy fire, _locate the enemy _ etc etc etc

In New Military, Data Overload Can Be Deadly

When military investigators looked into an attack by American helicopters last February that left 23 Afghan civilians dead, they found that the operator of a Predator drone had failed to pass along crucial information about the makeup of a gathering crowd of villagers. 

But Air Force and Army officials now say there was also an underlying cause for that mistake: information overload. 
At an Air Force base in Nevada, the drone operator and his team struggled to work out what was happening in the village, where a convoy was forming. They had to monitor the drone’s video feeds while participating in dozens of instant-message and radio exchanges with intelligence analysts and troops on the ground. 

There were solid reports that the group included children, but the team did not adequately focus on them amid the swirl of data — much like a cubicle worker who loses track of an important e-mail under the mounting pile. The team was under intense pressure to protect American forces nearby, and in the end it determined, incorrectly, that the villagers’ convoy posed an imminent threat, resulting in one of the worst losses of civilian lives in the war in Afghanistan. 

“Information overload — an accurate description,” said one senior military officer, who was briefed on the inquiry and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case might yet result in a court martial. The deaths would have been prevented, he said, “if we had just slowed things down and thought deliberately.” 

Data is among the most potent weapons of the 21st century. Unprecedented amounts of raw information help the military determine what targets to hit and what to avoid. And drone-based sensors have given rise to a new class of wired warriors who must filter the information sea. But sometimes they are drowning. 

Research shows that the kind of intense multitasking required in such situations can make it hard to tell good information from bad. The military faces a balancing act: how to help soldiers exploit masses of data without succumbing to overload. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/technology/17brain.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2


----------

