• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

VADM Edwards' Article

voodooqueen

DAR Lapsarian
More advanced technology is great, I mean, why not? As long as people don't forget what to do in the event that technology fails--
 

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
Exactly right. It is a consideration but one of many. I would suggest primary consideration is of course producing a product. The benefit you get from it. The rest is just making it effectively utilize (usually less but sometimes different) resources.

What is great about software is it allows flexibility. Wouldnt it be great to be able to dramatically increase fuel use to get an increase in thrust from an engine and then shut it right back off when you dont need it?

Software can do that. So I would expect a warfighter to be able to use program A for said job and then program B if there is adequate bandwidth and they need the extra 10%.
I agree with you. My point was that commercially available products may or may not take bandwidth/latency/throughput concerns into consideration while going through the software engineering process. Are they going to try and make it efficient? Yes. However, they may be making an assumption based on widely available broadband connections.

Government developed programs will make it more of a priority, because they realize that our limitations may be trying to push data through a TDL (Link 11/16, VMF), SHF on the ship, EPLRs, or the fat pipe of CONUS. That's why they likely have threshold/objective requirements to keep bandwidth in check. It shouldn't be up to the warfighter to have to flip the "I've got crappy bandwidth" switch, because he/she has something else on their mind. It needs to adapt itself.

And yes, I know that software can do that with engines. I'm a Software Engineer working on the CH-53K contract (and FADEC is a CSCI), so I've got a rough idea about that one...

Wow. You guys are dorks:D
Wow, says one IW "nerd" to another... At least I've got wings - that makes me cool. :D
 

robav8r

D-FENS
None
Contributor
What's the data rate for the Link 11 DTS on the mighty war pig?
Ahhhhhh . . . . . thank you for the opportunity Hozer. As I sit here preparing for test 3 in a couple of days, I am reviewing my new & improved P-3C NATOPS and just happened to be reviewing the Link 11 data rate . . . . . . . 2250 BPS (data fast), 1364 BPS (data slow). Somebody shoot me now . . . .
:(

. . . . and while we are at it, don't get me started on the shoes "glued" to their chat windows waiting for the next contact report, Datum, etc.
 

MrSaturn

Well-Known Member
Contributor
My point was that commercially available products may or may not take bandwidth/latency/throughput concerns into consideration while going through the software engineering process... However, they may be making an assumption based on widely available broadband connections.

Government developed programs will make it more of a priority, because they realize that our limitations may be trying to push data through a TDL (Link 11/16, VMF), SHF on the ship, EPLRs, or the fat pipe of CONUS.
We agree on lots of stuff :p I can see how my chain of thought warped. As it does on internet forums

The article from VADM Edward states how our bandwidth is dismal. A few responses seemed to just say "Oh that extra bandwidth is just for luxury".

If I had a thesis it would be that some COTS software that some view as luxuries can actually be tactical.

We use commercial software more and more (For example our chats). This software being developed under the assumption the end user will be on a home computer broadband connection and no consideration for our Navy's limitations. Hence, the importance of increasing our Bandwidth.
 

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
We agree on lots of stuff :p I can see how my chain of thought warped. As it does on internet forums

The article from VADM Edward states how our bandwidth is dismal. A few responses seemed to just say "Oh that extra bandwidth is just for luxury".

If I had a thesis it would be that some COTS software that some view as luxuries can actually be tactical.

We use commercial software more and more (For example our chats). This software being developed under the assumption the end user will be on a home computer broadband connection and no consideration for our Navy's limitations. Hence, the importance of increasing our Bandwidth.
Yes, we do agree on a number of things. I think that you misunderstood what I was saying, as well as others with regard to bandwidth. There is a lot of software that we use that is COTS, but when selecting suppliers - bandwitdth is evaluated. For example, mIRC (the chat program you're accustomed to using) is a very low bandwidth item (unless you're sending files) as evidenced by the fact that you can use it with EPLRS. Windows Live Messenger is not as low in the bandwidth category because of all the niceities that home users demand. Microsoft wasn't concerned about bandwidth when they developed it. So that's why mIRC was used, not Messenger.

Other COTS software is a luxury, that has a tactical application as well. Again bandwidth being a concern. Google Earth is a great example. Yes, it's very intuitive and has really good up to date imagery. It makes it easier for the analysts to grab imagery without having to devote too much time to it. However, it's a bandwidth hog. When the pipe narrows (using SHF on the ship for example), it's not realistic to use it. Google didn't take into consideration bandwidth when they designed it. In this case, Google Earth is a luxury item - because there are other tools available to accomplish the same thing, minus the slick GUI. Or, you could just be like my last MEU and shut down the NIPR to everyone but commanders and S-2 so they wouldn't have to give up their addiction to Google Earth (seriously, does EVERY brief need a shot from Google Earth?). I don't think that's the answer either.
 

MrSaturn

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Other COTS software is a luxury, that has a tactical application as well.

...Google Earth is a luxury item - because there are other tools available to accomplish the same thing, minus the slick GUI. Or, you could just be like my last MEU and shut down the NIPR to everyone but commanders and S-2 so they wouldn't have to give up their addiction to Google Earth...
So the big question if the MEU is willing to restrict other programs to use Google Earth is it really a luxury item? What do they get out of the slick GUI that the other tools cant get them?

I believe this example just emphasizes VADM Edward's belief that more attention should be put towards increasing bandwidth.
 

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
So the big question if the MEU is willing to restrict other programs to use Google Earth is it really a luxury item? What do they get out of the slick GUI that the other tools cant get them?

I believe this example just emphasizes VADM Edward's belief that more attention should be put towards increasing bandwidth.
Truth be told, the MEU S-2 officer was a weasel. I don't think that the MEU CO knew exactly WHAT they were using that required so much bandwidth - he just whined and said "I can't do my job." They don't get a whole lot more out of the slick interface, as a matter of fact - the fielded systems have more capabilities. With the fielded systems they can have overlays built with ACO/ATO information, current updated threats, threat rings, LOS analysis, airspace, DAFIF data, etc... automatically. Google Earth is just prettier. Again, you can't tell me that Google Earth is a necessity. I would rather have mediocre to good imagery, and all of the other data provided with the ability for me to use the SHF pipe if I need to research something for my flight.

Although I agree, more bandwidth would be better...
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
So the big question if the MEU is willing to restrict other programs to use Google Earth is it really a luxury item? What do they get out of the slick GUI that the other tools cant get them?

I believe this example just emphasizes VADM Edward's belief that more attention should be put towards increasing bandwidth.
As someone who sees it used daily, in almost all cases YES, it is definitely a luxury item that is not necessary.
 

FlyinSpy

Mongo only pawn, in game of life...
Contributor
As someone who sees it used daily, in almost all cases YES, it is definitely a luxury item that is not necessary.
Concur with Flash - FalconView can still do everything you need, and at a much lower bandwidth cost. And I say this as one of the bigger GE proponents on the classified networks.

However.....some of the new things being pushed out via GE on the classified side are really game-changing, and could easily lead to it becoming a true necessity. I expect these trends to continue, too. I use GE every day in my real job, and in less than a year has gone from a neat toy to a useful tool to a (borderline) necessity. I tried using it in some of the same ways in Afghanistan, and found that the bandwidth limitations, even on a fixed base with decent connectivity, were still limiting - it would be much harder through a really thin pipe if I had been trying to work it on a ship.

I can see how some S-2s would whine if they didn't get the bandwidth they thought they needed, but you also have to know when you're screwing over everyone else - there are still all the traditional sources of info out there. Bad on the -3 or the -6 for not knowing the -2's business enough to call his bluff....

(As a sidenote, it's funny to watch how NGA tries to deal with the explosion of GE use/utility - they tried to fight it for a while, but are slowly getting co-opted. Inertial organizations with multi-year acquisition cycles don't deal well with products whose lifecyles are in weeks/months. For those out there with access, check out some of the GE work being done by the COIC.)
 

bert

Enjoying the real world
pilot
Contributor
Much like the number of asses that need to go ship to ship will grow to meet the number of seats in the PMC bird, the amount of data passed will quickly grow to meet the amount of bandwidth available. Having said that, we have assets in the fleet already that are capable of passing enormous amounts of information that - as of now - all the players cannot take full advantage of (60R and E-2D spring to mind; the R is on work-ups already and the E-2D is not far away).

Look at the number of UAV's airborne at any given time and imagine how much bandwidth it would take to get that information to ground forces fully equipped with the Army's FCS. Now imagine everybody on Link 16 (and follow on's) at the same time as well, none of it wired. Now try to imagine anybody who rates any kind of staff being willing to say "No, I don't want the raw info, you can just filter it to me....".
 
Top