Posts

Will the unmanned future be American?

, , , ,

droneThe unmanned community has been demoralized by the tightening of the Defense money spigot. Specifically, many are concerned that American leadership in this important field will fall behind as the Defense funding decreases. In a previous post, this blog reviewed “The Looming Robotics Gap” (Foreign policy) and found its fears of failing American unmanned superiority unwarranted.

However, it’s hard to keep a depressing idea down.  A more recent article, “Do Drones have a future?” (War on the Rocks), written by Paul Scharre, an expert with the prestigious and influential think tank Center for a New American Security, maintains the steady drumbeat of fear about American decline.

The two articles have much in common.  They both complain of the restriction of unmanned systems to niche areas (technological ghettos), and the hostility of the pilot culture to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). Both used detailed information to support their points.  Whereas the earlier Foreign Policy article focused on competition by nation states and the threats posed by widespread commercialization, the later article is mostly concerned with attitudes within each military service.   Although, I remain skeptical of the alarm raised by the Scharre’s article, I do appreciate its comprehensive overview of each service branch.  You can follow the above link to read the whole article, or read my summary and analysis below.

 

Air Force

Considering the Air Force is the epitome of pilot culture that has restricted the development of unmanned systems, Scharre is surprisingly mild in his assessment of this service branch. He is especially complimentary of the Air Force’s new Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Vector. However, he criticizes it for not being funded.

Rob Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development Programs (DOD), who has many years of experience in procurement, finds this criticism wanting.

“For one thing the Vector document is not meant to be funded” he explained. “It is a ‘Vision and Enabling Concepts’ document.  It is for ‘Guidance’.”

Culver also sees the debates about the role of unmanned systems as typical for new technology.

“In some ways it mirrors the advent and adoption of armor versus horse cavalry, fixed wing aircraft versus rotary wing aircraft,” he argues. For a discussion about the adoption of machine guns, he recommends Grim Reaper: Machine-Guns and Machine-Gunners in Action by Roger Ford.

Scharre disparages the Air Force for not making the top position in overseeing unmanned systems a pathway to promotion.  He also advocates deploying autonomous, multiple, low cost, “expendable” UAVs in swarms.  It is not clear from the article if the Air Force is considering this or if Scharre is mentioning it, because he thinks it’s a good idea.

Army

Compared to the Air Force, the influence of pilot culture in the Army is minimal.  Perhaps, this is why, according to Scharre, that it is furthest along in integrating unmanned systems.  He praises (rightly, in my opinion) the development of unmanned-manned teams.

He also discusses swarms again. Specifically, he criticizes the lack of funding for autonomy research.  Culver counters that there is funding for this (at least DARPA is doing research), and wonders if Scharre’s pro-swarm agenda is the real point of this article.

 

Navy

In his discussion of the Navy, Scharre resists the urge to mention swarming.  He does criticize the specifications of Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS). He writes that they are not “relevant against more sophisticated adversaries” (the “adversaries” to which he is obliquely referring consist of a large unidentified Asian country, whose name rhymes with “Dinah”). He also voices the often-heard suspicion that the Navy deliberately downgraded the requirements, so as to not compete with next generation of manned fighters.

Both Culver and I think Scharre is jumping the gun in regards to UCLASS.  The program is a work in progress, and the Navy has a process to follow through.

Frankly, I am amazed at the amount of progress that the Navy has already made.  One of the most difficult missions in the military is using a maritime platform for the deployment of combat aircraft. The fact that the Navy has already landed a UAV on a carrier suggests that they are not dragging their feet on unmanned systems.

 

Marines

The Marines do not have a lot going on with unmanned systems. They don’t like using the assets of other services, but their amphibious boats do not have much room for additional equipment.  Perhaps, the Marines would be more enthusiastic about adopting robots if they could find one that boasts that it’s tougher than all the other unmanned systems.

 

Conclusion

Scharre concludes that we are all doomed.  Well, no, he doesn’t actually write that.  In fact, he outlines a sophisticated vision for the role of unmanned systems, and warns that the US lead is “fragile.”

Both Culver and I feel that Scharre made some interesting points, and agree with most of what he said.  We are a little dubious of some of his criticisms and feel that the adoption of unmanned systems is facing obstacles similar to ones that challenged other new technologies in the past. Despite their skeptics, machine guns, airplanes, and armored vehicles have a firm place in modern forces. So will unmanned systems.

Speaking for myself, I am glad that the unmanned community has advocates like Scharre.  However, I still feel that in spite of bureaucratic obstinacy and funding problems, the US is in an excellent position to maintain unmanned dominance for some time to come.

To learn more about DoD’s unmanned plans, contact

Rob Culver at (603) 325-3376 or robertc@amrel.com

/by

Counter IED training & Mobile Devices

, , , , ,

C-IED & Mobile devicesWhen I researched this article about Counter Improvised Explosive Devices (C-IED) training, I couldn’t help thinking about communities near Tijuana in which the the homes are built out of discarded garage doors.  Garage doors aren’t the first thing anyone thinks of when building a house, but the people near the border didn’t have building materials.  So, they looked around and found what was available: discarded garage doors.

Similarly, the military has a problem: training.  As the land wars wind down in Asia (sort of), training domestically becomes more important.  Simultaneously, training budgets are being squeezed. Future operational goals are unpredictable, so training for diverse scenarios is necessary. Live training is expensive, so more has to be done with less.  Rapid technological change means rapid change in doctrine and tactics. It is important that feedback from ongoing missions be incorporated as soon as possible into training.

Just like the folks in Tijuana, the military looked around for available materials to solve their problems.  What they found were mobile devices.  Just like garage doors are not normally associated as the basic building materials for houses, nobody in boot camp ever told a soldier that their best friend is their smart phone.

So far, mobile devices have proven to be a pretty good fit. Mobile devices are excellent platforms for virtual programs, videos, interactive simulation systems, and smart books. Familiarity with specialized military apps allows the soldier to seamlessly transition to operations in which mobile devices are used as lightweight, mobile repositories for doctrinal manuals, as well as maintenance & technical manuals. They can even be used for educational games (in the past soldiers learned to identify soviet aircraft from specially designed playing cards).

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

Their single most important quality of mobile devices is that they are dynamic.  No more paper manuals or books that are outdated by the time they are printed. Mobile devices can be updated instantly.

The embrace of mobile devices for training reflects a subtle, but meaningful change. The old model of attending a class where a teacher pours knowledge into a soldier’s empty heads is fading.  Instead, the soldier is trained to learn.  He is given personal responsibility for his education and he is expected to be disciplined about continuously improving his skill sets. He will carry this self-motivated attitude into the field, where he will need to constantly refresh his knowledge. The 24/7, anywhere, anytime nature of mobile devices fits this outlook perfectly.

The old formula to deal with the ever increasing burden of training soldiers was “train the trainer.” The new model may be described as “equip the learner.”

These trends are reflected in counter IED training. Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) is tasked with countering the “number one killer of Soldiers on the current battlefields worldwide.”  As they state on their training webpage, “Because the IED threat is constantly changing, the counter-IED fight is dynamic, and maintaining effectiveness remains an enduring requirement of training solution development.”  Just like the rest of the military, JIEDDO has embraced mobile devices as a solution for the need of continuous training.

For the purposes of C-IED training, JIEDDO’s Instructional Technology Development Team (ITDT) developed what it describes as “Digital Learning Content products.”  It is telling that these “products” support several types of learning: institutional, operational, and self-development.  Just offering these options conveys an important message; a warfighter’s training never ceases.

Through its Joint Center of Excellence, (JCOE), JIEDDO has a small team of personnel located in Afghanistan conducting an exhaustive lessons-learned program.   Brigade and regimental combat team staffs are debriefed at 90-day, mid-tour, and post-deployment milestones.  Training is updated with relevant information.

Let’s formulate a hypothetical example in which updated information could be critical. The enemy favors planting IEDs on roads a military vehicle has previously used. Currently, warfighters use a map application on their mobile devices to avoid routes that have been already traveled.  Suppose the enemy wises up to this tactic? Considering the flexibility and ingenuity they have shown in the past, this is certainly possible. A sudden switch in tactics could make the most-used road the safest one. Thanks to mobile devices, a warfighter can be informed of this life-saving information in real time.

In keeping with the military’s aversion to committing to any specific hardware, these Digital Learning Content products are available on multiple platforms. The Digital Learning Content products described above were deliberately designed to function within a “Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)” environment.

However, as the distinction between training and deployment becomes blurred, the military cannot ignore basic hardware issues.  If mobile devices are used for field training (and communication, situational awareness, and other purposes), how secure is it?  Is the information on it secure if a soldier is captured with his mobile device?   Is a password log-in good enough protection?   Is there a software solution that can thoroughly wipe the hard drive if the wrong key combination is pressed?   Or does it require a physical anti-tamper device that melts the whole thing down?  If it does have wireless and/or Bluetooth, how do you make it hack/virus/malware proof?

The military has focused on creating applications, specifically to avoid committing to one hardware device. Obviously, this is completely impractical for devices carried in theater.  Logistics for heterogeneous platforms would be a nightmare.

Which brings us to the critical issue of ruggedness. Commercial mobile devices, such as smartphones, are notoriously fragile. Obviously, fully rugged devices are needed in theater. If training is designed to seamlessly blend from stateside to areas of operations, doesn’t it make sense to use the same mobile device? Rugged mobile devices for domestic training would decrease the amount of downtime due to equipment failure and breakage.

JIEDDO has made significant progress in incorporating mobile devices into their training, and adjusting their doctrine to meet contemporary needs.  Still, more needs to be done.

For more information on rugged mobile devices, contact Rob Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development – DoD Programs. He can be reached at (603) 325 3376 or robertc@amrel.com.

/by

What military technology will disrupt future markets?

, ,

DB6_soldier_legRecently, someone asked a question on Quora about which military technology is more advanced than its commercial counterpart.  How would you have answered this question?  What military technology will disrupt future commercial markets? A modified form of my answer follows:

I think the question is based on a premise that may be outdated. Traditionally, the military has funded pioneering Research & Development (R&D). Eventually, these technological breakthroughs would be transferred to the civilian market. The Internet and personal computers are examples of this paradigm.

However, the explosive growth of civilian electronics has changed all that. The civilian market is way bigger, much more dynamic, and often more advanced than the military one.

During Desert Storm, officers noticed that combat personnel were ignoring government-issued electronic equipment, and bringing items bought on the civilian market into front-line combat areas. They also noticed that the consumer items were frequently superior to the military ones. An example that is often given is SIGINT troops using RadioShack scanners to gather intelligence on digital data, because their government collectors were designed for old-fashion analog signals. An ex-Marine told me that, during the 90s, he and his buddies bought their own walkie-talkies, because the government issued ones had overly large and clumsy batteries.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

This change in technological development is an especially serious problem for the American military, which relies on a hi-tech edge to maintain superiority. Why spend a fortune developing something when the enemy can buy the same or superior product at a local store?

The Department of Defense is desperately trying to adapt to this new situation. R&D is much more limited, and there is a greater emphasis on purchasing Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products.  However, this transition has not been without is challenges (See COTS – the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly).

However, there are still some items used by the military that I have not seen in civilian markets, and that may be ripe for commercial use:

  1. Renewable energy solutions.  The American military, the largest user of oil in the world, has enthusiastically embraced renewable energy as a cost-saving measure and for logistical reasons. At tradeshows, I have seen “rucksack” solar panels, i.e. soft ones that roll up in a backpack. I have never seen anything like them in the camping stores I frequent. Some of the military’s mobile renewable energy solutions would be great for off-grid and poor communities.
  2. Rugged computers. These are tough computers that can withstand harsh, environmental conditions.  VDC Research determined that even though these computers initially cost more than conventional commercial models, they actually save money in the long run, because of fewer repairs, less downtime, and less lost data. Police officers, warehouse workers, oil workers, outdoorsmen, miners, farmers, field researchers, and others would benefit from using rugged computers. I recently talked to a geophysicist who dragged a rugged computer through miles of a wet underground cave system, and was thrilled with its reliability. Sadly, many are unaware of rugged computers’ financial and practical advantages. In theory, a clever entrepreneur, with very little start-up costs, could identify a needy market niche, and make money selling rugged computers to them.  To learn more about rugged computers, visit computers.amrel.com
  3. Robotics. I do not know which is the primary driving force in robotic development, civilian or military. I do know that the military is doing amazing things, especially through DARPA.  I would not be surprised to see some of the military’s pioneering work on autonomy used for self-driving cars and robots that assist the elderly or disabled.

What do you think?

Tell us about the next big military-to-civilian tech transfer by emailing editor@amrel.com

/by

Battlefield interoperability is here, sort of

, , ,

soldier commFor decades, the American military has pursued the related goals of interoperable combat communications, netcentric warfare, and team/joint warfare. These Defense initiatives have been more noted for their challenges than their successes. In fact, problems facing true interoperability seemed so great that I had associated it with the drive for procurement reform, i.e. a good idea, but it ain’t going to happen.

A recent article about the Israel/Gaza war has caused me to revise my skepticism.  The IDF’s first fully digital war describes two incidents, which reveal the reality of interoperable communications.

The article contains a video (in Hebrew), which records the first incident.  Gunfire from an unknown origin has pinned down Israeli infantrymen in a building. A trapped Israeli soldier radios an airplane, and then asks the pilot if he can locate his adversaries.  The pilot calmly reassures the soldier that he sees the enemy, and will “destroy” them, which he does.

In a second incident, Navy radar detected the movements in water off the coast of Israel.  The Navy warned seaside military surveillance operators, one of whom spotted Hamas gunmen coming ashore. Video and relevant intelligence was distributed simultaneously both to ground and air forces, who successfully attacked the enemy.

These stories come from Israeli Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I), who boasted that the interconnectivity of their forces in Gaza is “unprecedented.” They describe how multiple sources feed video/intelligence to a central core, which then relays them to the appropriate commanders in the field.  If you have read about the doctrine of netcentric warfare or the drive toward interoperable communications, this should sound very familiar.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

The above referenced article was sent to me by someone who wanted to impress me with the technological awesomeness of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). I was about to write her back an email, which essentially said, “Yes, the IDF is very advanced, but these capabilities are no big deal. This sort of thing has been going on for years.”

Before I hit the “sent” button, I reconsidered the message of my email.  I compared the Israeli infantryman’s experience with that of a soldier in the American invasion of Grenada during the early 80s. The American soldier placed a long distance, international, commercial phone call (a big deal in those days) to Fort Bragg, North Carolina in order to obtain C-130 gunship support for his unit, which was under fire. The call for support was relayed by satellite to the gunship, which did respond.  The soldier had to use a commercial telephone service in this roundabout manner, because, in spite of planning and promises, there was no interoperable communications between services.

The Israeli soldier had access to critical, direct inter-service communications that the earlier American soldier did not. The fact that I was not impressed by the Israeli stories is actually a sign of how far we have come.

I contacted Robert Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development – DoD Programs for his expert opinion on the current state of interoperability. Had the future arrived, and I hadn’t noticed?

Robert confirmed my impression; the Israeli stories are mundane.  However, he warned that we haven’t reached interoperable utopia yet.  “The problem is not technological,” he said.

Consider the first story of the trapped Israeli infantryman. A “call for fire” is different for an air strike than it is for artillery or other ground support.  For one thing, the impact of an aerial strike would be greater. Has the infantryman been trained to know when an aerial strike is appropriate?  Has he mastered the jargon and rules of the Air Force?

 It is not practical for everyone in a military offensive to have open communications with everyone else; they would drown in a sea of confusing chatter.  Probably, the Israeli pilot was talking to a forward observer, who has been trained for this scenario, but how much training?  “You can practice with bullets every day. Planes, not so much,” said Robert.

What about the pilot?  Can he see what the infantryman did?  In this story, he was able to locate the building in which the Israelis were pinned down, but it may not be so easy in every instance.

Part of the controversy surrounding the plans to eliminate the beloved A-10 (Warthog) has to do with how the Air Force sees itself. A-10s fly low to the ground (Robert:”We can see them eyeball to eyeball”).  But the Air Force doesn’t think of itself as a close ground support service.  They want to rely on the high-flying B-2, and use to technology to compensate for the distance of the pilot from the ground.  Would the trapped Israeli scenario described above be possible if the pilot was flying a B-2?  Would the infantryman know enough to make the proper request to the most appropriate airplane?

Let’s say the infantryman, or more likely a forward observer, was adequately trained for interoperable communications. Could he do anything else useful?  This is not a facetious question. Modern American soldiers are among the most educated in history. In order to coordinate with other services, they will have to learn even more. Cognitive overload is a definite danger.

Even if we are able to adequately train all the services to work well and play nice together, will it do any good? As noted above, American military personnel had been trained in interoperability for the Grenada invasion. Interoperability failed almost immediately. A number of reasons have been cited, but one of the more interesting is the lack of “exercise realism.” Joint service exercises are thoroughly prepared and optimized for results. Of course, “no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy,” but multiple service cooperation adds a layer of complexity that is easily disrupted.

There are other difficulties, which will be familiar to anyone who has read about interoperable battlefield communications. The need for an open network conflicts with security requirements. Bandwidth management is already a problem, but will get worse with an increase in radio communications.

Interoperable communications have vastly improved. Tales of pilots talking directly to ground-pounders inspire a ho-hum reaction. But we have a long way to go before we fulfill the true promise of interoperability.

 For his insights, many thanks to Rob Culver.

 He can be reached at (603) 325 3376 or robertc@amrel.com.

 

 

 

/by

No more free UGVs for police

, , , ,

As the violent images of Ferguson, Missouri permeate the media, a debate has erupted about the “militarization of police.”  Strangely, this controversy might affect the utilization of Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) by Public Safety departments.  The same federal program – Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 1033 – that delivers riot shields and automatic weapons to police departments for free, also distributes UGVs.

Basically, the feds are transferring extraneous equipment, including UGVs, from the military to the police. Cash-strapped police departments love this.  Others not so much.

Some UGV developers have complained that the free robots dampen their market. Others in the unmanned community have pooh-poohed this idea by claiming that the UGVs being offered by the 1033 program are old, obsolete and/or too banged up to be of value.

Many (including some police officers) have been attacking this military-to-police transfer of equipment.  They claim that supplying even small, rural departments with automatic weapons and other SWAT staples has led to a more violent, confrontational attitude among the police. A good example of this argument is One Nation Under SWAT, which appeared on Salon.com. (This Salon article does not  reflect the opinions of AMREL, the blog, our partners, or our clients. We are linking to it, because we believe that people in the unmanned and Law Enforcement communities should know what is being said in this controversy.)

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

UGVs, whose only role is to save lives, are likely to be put in the same category as other “militarized” equipment.  Knowing the way Washington works, if the 1033 program is scrapped, the era of free UGVs would be over.

AMREL has a number of employees who have experience in the Law Enforcement community.  I sent the Salon article to them.  This is the reaction of some of them to the “militarization of police” controversy.

  1. One former officer told me that the militarization of the police is real. It used to be that the only officers that were heavily armed were the ones that belonged to small specialty teams.  Most people practiced “community” policing.  Now, that situation is reversed.
  2. There is an arms race between criminals and the police. I heard several stories of times when the police were outgunned. This has led to a preference for lighter, larger caliber weapons.
  3. Cops like the military-to-police program. “We need automatic weapons,” said one former officer.

So, the essential point of the Salon article is wrong. The distribution of military equipment has not led to a militarization of police.  Rather, a militarization of police has led to the acquisition of military weapons.

As unfair as it might be, this debate is likely to affect the acquisition of UGVs by police.  Members of the unmanned community would be wise to keep an eye on this issue.

AMREL is the leader in providing Operator Control Units (OCU) for UGVs. 

To learn more, contact Rob Culver at robertc@amrel.com  or (603) 325 3376

UPDATE: 

After reading this blog post, AMREL’s Senior Application Engineer, Javier Camarillo, confirms the suspicions of the low quality of the free UGVs.  “I get calls all the time from small police departments, often from non-technical people.  They view UGVs as complicated systems with attachments and accessories. They can’t get the them to work, and they can’t afford the parts they need.  Sometimes, parts for the older UGVs are unavailable at any price.”

Maybe the 1033 program is actually hindering the adoption of UGVs by Public Safety officials.  After all, the distribution of poorly performing equipment is teaching a generation of officers that UGVs are unreliable, expensive to support, and difficult to repair.  For a discussion about the cost and value of UGVs, see an earlier blog post,  UGV cost & why they should have leather seats.

/by
Test alt text

Gaza Robots Get No love

, , ,

MTGR (2)Ever since militaries took to the air, ground pounders have felt their airborne counterparts enjoyed too much glamour as well as too much credit for victories. Strangely, this tension extends to unmanned systems as well. Even an average person has heard of Predator UAVs, who are often featured in news articles, TV shows, and movies.  On the other hand, the humble PackBot and MARCbot UGVs labor in relative obscurity.

Nowhere is this disparity more evident than the current Gaza conflict. Nightly news anchors pour out superlatives on the remarkable Iron Dome air defense system, but mainstream media ignore the important UGVs.

Since it is operated by humans, the Iron Dome is not usually thought of as an unmanned system (technically this can also be said of Predators and most UAVs as well).  However, the Iron Dome’s most remarkable feature is its artificial intelligence, i.e. ability to track incoming rocket/artillery shell, determine whether its trajectory menaces a populated target, and then deploy an interceptor that neutralizes the threat. This is all done automatically in seconds.

Those of us who remember the Patriot anti-missile system controversies of the first Gulf War greet the unbridled enthusiasm surrounding the Iron Dome with more than a little skepticism.  After all, during that war, the successes of the Patriot were also heralded loudly.  It wasn’t until after the battles ceased that a more sober analysis questioned its effectiveness. Indeed, that debate has never been fully resolved.

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Tablet Modules

SINGLE FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

DUAL FINGERPRINT SCANNER

SMART CARD READER

MAGNETIC STRIPE READER

2D BARCODE READER

Compatible models: BioSense & BIOPTIX Tablets

Build-Your-Own-Module (BYOM)

Smartphone Modules

DUAL FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

SINGLE FAP45 FINGERPRINT MODULE

Compatible models: BioFlex® Smartphones

A few Iron Dome contrarians have also emerged. MIT’s Theodore A. Postol writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists argues the Iron Dome’s success rate may be as low as 5%. The relatively low casualty rate of Israelis, who have been subjected to over 3,000 rocket attacks, may be due to their excellent civil defense, and the poor quality of the Palestinian weapons. Some regard the notoriously ineffective Qassams rockets deployed by Hamas as primarily psychological weapons.

Whatever the truth is, what can’t be questioned is that the Iron Dome has provided a great deal of emotional comfort to the Israelis.  I have been in contact with friends in Israel, who have repeatedly told me “We trust in the Iron Dome.”  It could be that Israel has countered a weapon that is primarily psychological with a defensive system that is also primarily psychological.

MTGR tunnelQassam rockets may provide good visuals, but the biggest threat to Israel in this war is literally unseen, i.e. the tunnels.  The number, size, and sophistication of Hamas’s tunnels surprised the Israelis, who quickly made their elimination the number one priority of the war.

Exploring enemy’s tunnels is one of the most terrifying missions a foot soldier can undertake. Slowly advancing through a cramped dark environment, a solider must be constantly on guard against hidden booby traps and unseen ambushers.

To assist in this dirty and dangerous task, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have turned to Micro Tactical Ground Robots (MTGR), manufactured by the Israeli firm, Roboteam. MTGR belongs to a smaller class of UGVs, sometimes called “Man-Transportable,” “Throwable-bots,” “Pocketbots,” “Small Unmanned Ground Vehicles (SUGV),” or “Micro-UGVs.”

Militaries around the world have been attracted by the ability of these small UGVs to navigate in compact spaces, and their easy transportability. Prominent American-made small UGVs include ARA Pointman Tactical Robot, and Foster-Miller’s Dragon Runner Reconnaissance Robot.  iRobot fields several compact UGVs, including the 310 SUGV (small version of the PackBot), and  the 110 FirstLook.  This blog explored the advantages and popularity of reduced-size robots in The Incredibly Shrinking UGV.

The Israeli MTGR weighs less than 20 pounds and is only in 17.9” in length. Its Line of Sight (LOS) operating range is 1600 feet.  Five onboard day/night cameras, a microphone and visible/near IR laser pointers work on 3600 of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR). Real-time video, voice, and data stream over encrypted radio transmissions.

As written above, the Israelis have not been forthcoming about their use of the MTGR, which suggest to me that they regard it’s capabilities as an asset to be guarded.  So, while video of the Iron Dome fill the nightly news, the MTGR crawls, unseen through the darkness. Sometimes, what you can’t see, can save your life.

AMREL is a leading provider of Operator Control Units for SUGVs.

To learn more, please contact Rob Culver at (603) 325-3376 or robertc@amrel.com

 

/by

Remote-controlled .50 cal M2 [VIDEO]

, , , , , ,

Check out this video of a remote-controlled .50 caliber M2.  About 35 seconds in, you will notice the dual-screen mobile weapons control station.  Nicknamed “the DK Flipper,”  this fully rugged tablet has a separate display for power and video input. This customized DK10 tablet acts as a force multiplier by enabling a single person to control several Remotely Operated Weapon Stations (ROWS). Learn more at AMREL’s tablet customization page.

 

/by

Defense Procurement Bumped Up by $26b

defense-spendingBudget cuts and a lack of direction have created an anxious atmosphere for many Defense vendors.  Recent events, however, provide cause for cautious optimism.  For one thing, the 2015 Defense budget made it through the Senate appropriations committee. This is a hopeful sign that the government may avoid the dangerous, near-default showdowns that have made supplying the military so difficult and unpredictable. Defense Industry Daily has a nice summary on the latest budget.  One detail that caught my eye, the beloved “warthog” (A-10C) is getting an upgrade.

Another cause for optimism for Defense vendors is an announcement that mid-year projections for procurement and research are $26 billion higher than before.  However, not everyone trusts these projections. Below, we reprint an article than originally appeared in Bloomberg Government.

Defense Firms To See $26b More In Outlays By Sept. 30, DoD Says

Revised Pentagon mid-year projections call for $26b more in procurement, research outlays by Sept. 30 than first estimates, according to newly disclosed figures.

Pentagon’s on-paper estimate now projects spending $110.7b on procurement by end of fiscal yr, up from $92.1b April forecast; as well as $63.3b in research, up from $56b, according to Pentagon spokesman Navy Commander Bill Urban.

Military personnel outlays drop to $149.5b from $154.2b; operations and Maintenance slip to $246.3b from $272.8b.

Projections not outlined in July 11 OMB Mid-session Review.

Industry analysts in April said defense spending might plunge, based on Pentagon’s “Green Book” blueprint indicating drop in outlays for weapons, research of combined 18.5% compared with FY13.

Todd Harrison, defense analyst for non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says “new outlay projections” mean “near-term will not be so bad for U.S. defense firms as DOD previously projected.”

“However, I suspect most defense firms were not basing their internal projections on DOD’s prior outlay forecast, so it may not mean any material change for these companies,” he says.

“Companies have dismissed the projected drop and supported their own guidances,” says Roman Schweizer, defense policy analyst with Guggenheim Securities.

“Change may improve sentiment for the sector but not affect financial performance,” Schweizer says.

Schweizer says larger question is: given the revision can the Pentagon “Green Book projections be trusted?

/by

Building the 2021 Affordable Military [DOWNLOAD]

, ,

The bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has been rated the “…number one think tank for security and international affairs” (Wikipedia).  Power brokers and key influencers staff the CSIS, and when they talk, people listen.Building the 2021 Affordable Military

What they have to say about how we spend money on Defense will undoubtedly be heard by important decision makers. The 120-page “Building the 2021 Affordable Military” was created by a CSIS study team over the course of two years. It is “…a methodological approach for how DoD could minimize the impact of a deep budgetary reduction and provide the military capabilities needed for the strategic realities of 2020+.”

They even developed cost calculators for making trade-off decisions. They don’t simply advocate a specific strategy; they tell you the cost of various “alternative militaries.”

The great thing about this study is its unqualified embrace of details. What to find out how many tankers the Air Force Reserve has now? Will need? With or without sequester? With or without the Pacific tilt? This report has an answer for you. Same goes for battalions, submarines, and pretty much anything else you can think of.

One little tidbit I found on page 3 was “In the past, drawdowns ended below $400 billion in constant 2013 dollars; this one will bottom out at over $500 billion. In FY 2017, even though DoD is spending over $100 billion more, it will ‘buy’ an active duty force that is 34 percent smaller than in 1978 and six percent smaller than in 2000. This means not just fewer defense dollars but also a “weaker” defense dollar in terms of its purchasing power.”

So, the people who are complaining that Defense spending is at a historic high (during a drawdown) and those that are warning about  “hollowed-out” military capabilities are both right.

“Building the 2021 Affordable Military” is an ideal reference work for those doing serious market research on Defense issues.  Download it here.

 

/by

DARPA Robotics Challenge

, , , , ,

Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) don’t get much love. Their aerial cousins, usually described by the technically inaccurate term “drone,” receive much more publicity, as well as greater funding. UGV developers fear that the Defense budget squeeze will disproportionately affect them.

However, one federal agency still believes in promoting UGV development. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is sponsoring the DARPA Robotics Challenge, “… a competition of robot systems and software teams vying to develop robots capable of assisting humans in responding to natural and man-made disasters.” In addition to a $2 million prize for the top contestant, this challenge represents a wonderful opportunity to explore capabilities and for developers to network.

Read more

/by