Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Wireless Networking Hardware

US Military Develops P2P Wireless Network Sniffer 299

Merlin83 writes "As being reported on The Register, the US Military is developing a new system for monitoring enemy battlefield communication. Called WolfPack, each node is a 6"x4" cylinder, launched by missile or dropped from aircraft. Once the node lands, it stands up, extends its antenna and contacts other nodes. The nodes can also jam cellular communications by transmitting a signal themselves. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Military Develops P2P Wireless Network Sniffer

Comments Filter:
  • Of "the Diamond Age". We just have to get these things smaller...

  • RIAA (Score:5, Funny)

    by sik0fewl ( 561285 ) <<xxdigitalhellxx> <at> <hotmail.com>> on Friday August 15, 2003 @11:59AM (#6706269) Homepage
    I would've thought the RIAA would've been ahead of the US military on this one.
  • by luzrek ( 570886 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:00PM (#6706278) Journal
    Considering how dependant the US military is on high tech communications, I'm guessing we are only hearing about this because they have figured out how to get around something like this. Anyone care to speculate on what that is?
  • by ArmenTanzarian ( 210418 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:01PM (#6706279) Homepage Journal
    Radar Tech: Sir! The radar, sir! It appears to be... jammed!
    Dark Helmet: Jammed... Raspberry!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:01PM (#6706281)
    Schematics and technical info here:

    Cellular Phone Jammers [dyndns.org]
  • Can you... (Score:5, Funny)

    by hussain ( 579409 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:01PM (#6706286)
    ..hear me now? boom!
  • P2P? (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:01PM (#6706288) Homepage
    [sgt] deploy the WolfPack
    [pvt] roger
    [pvt] stand by...

    aol_grl has joined #battlefield

    [aol_grl] h3y guyz!!!
    [aol_grl] 17/f/s
    [aol_grl] u wanna ch^7??
    [pvt] oh shit
    [sgt] get out of here bitch, we're trying to fight a war

    [aol_grl] aol_grl sends roses to sgt @-`,-`,--

    [aol_grl] dont b a poop mouth!!!

    [aol_grl] any1 now how2 make the mouse go faster??????
    [aol_grl] my pC is *really* sloooowwww
    [aol_grl] whatz wolfpack???
    [aol_grl] imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!!! hahahaha!!!
    aol_grl giggles madly

    sgt has left #battlefield
    pvt has left #battlefield

    [aol_grl]>>> guyz???
  • by don_carnage ( 145494 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:03PM (#6706297) Homepage

    Each device, which runs on battery, should last approximately two months. When possible, devices can be recovered and reused. The cost of each is estimated at $10,000.

    $10,000??!! I bet there are plenty of Linux geeks around Slashdot that could do it for a fraction of that! ;^)

    • by avalys ( 221114 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:07PM (#6706341)
      Well, let's see - it's a 6' by 4' metal cylinder, that has to be dropped from an airplane or launched and deployed from a missile into a possibly hostile environment (hot/cold/dusty/wet), yet still reliably remain intact enough to right itself on a surface that is most likely not flat, deploy its antenna and function for two months off a single battery charge.

      $10,000 sounds like a bargain.
    • That probably includes the $CO licensing fee.
    • by devphil ( 51341 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:14PM (#6706406) Homepage


      And the average /. reader is probably also cylidrically shaped, too, just like the canisters.

      When dropped from a height, if your first reactions are to stand up, contact other geeks, and begin finding local networks, then yes, Uncle Sam Wants You!

  • Imagine a... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jaxdahl ( 227487 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:03PM (#6706301)
    beowulf cluster of these! No. Seriously. Could you have a impromptu cellular network be put up, perhaps in the Niagara-Mohawk area if power goes out again and the cell-phone tower generators run out of fuel?
    • $10,000 buys a lot of diesel.
    • Re:Imagine a... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GlassHeart ( 579618 )
      Could you have a impromptu cellular network be put up, perhaps in the Niagara-Mohawk area if power goes out again and the cell-phone tower generators run out of fuel?

      It's not terribly practical.

      Such a device would have to do more than eavesdrop and relay. It has to continually broadcast to let cell phones know it exists. This will likely consume a lot more power than the military device.

      Such a device would almost by definition only be used in emergencies, where phone usage is expected to peak. The

  • Why the limitation? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Old Burke ( 679901 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:04PM (#6706315)
    ..for monitoring enemy battlefield communication..

    Why limit the system to only battlefield? I mean if this works for the US Military it is also usefull in a more civill environment.
    The Army could license the technology to companies and earn in some of those tax dollars.
    This has happened before with a lot of tech and it could happen again. Just think about the possibilities in for example the fight against terror.

    • by bourne ( 539955 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:39PM (#6706580)

      Why limit the system to only battlefield?

      Because in a civil environment, we call devices that allow eavesdropping and jamming of communications "cell towers" and "central offices."

      Seriously, something like this is designed to intrude into an area of no control or hostile control. The civil scenario you describe is one where the authorities have control, and have laws requiring the telecom carriers to allow access to the infrastructure in certain circumstances. No need to drop pringles cans.

  • by ivanmarsh ( 634711 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:06PM (#6706324)
    WAN-mines?

  • How Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brew Bird ( 59050 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:07PM (#6706336)
    Picture now that these devices are equiped not only with wireless, but also with infrared and motion sensors.

    Slave these to a smart 'expert' system, that creates a 'map' of the area over which they have been spread. Now you can 'see' when anyone intrudes into that area.

    Slave THAT to some artilery (or better yet, a jeep towed high energy rail gun ;) ), and you have just created a mine field that can be abandond without worring about hurting civilians afterwards.

    I wrote a high end overview of such a system for my technical writing class in 1989... As I recall, I got a 'D' for it, because my diagrams were not good enough. Ahh, I wish I could have had Visio back then!
    • Re:How Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:22PM (#6706458)
      It's also a miefield that can be taken out by a sharpshooter from 1KM away. All you'd have to do is shoot these things. I'm pretty sure they're not invisible.

      I think custom-camouflage would be good for this sort of thing. Just drop a bunch of these in individualized 'rock' shells that blend in in Afghanistan, etc.
      • And it's also a minefield that can be taken out with radio jamming. You'd have to jam a pretty large area though, or else they can just fire where there is no signal.

        It's also a minefield you can get through by driving through quickly (too much lag between detection and shell impact). Just change directions occasionally so they can't project your location.
        • the original design used Infrared p2p in a matrix... all the sensors would 'ping' to find the closest sensor, the sensors closest to the main 'brain' of the bunch were connected to the mini-gun/rail gun at the permiter of the base/airfield you are tring to keep infiltrators out of.

          Driving 'fast' through the area was not though to be much of an issue, because at that point, you arn't trying to infiltrate, you have gone from a covert to an overt mode of operation.

          Also, you would use a diffrent type of mine
      • Re:How Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Brew Bird ( 59050 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:03PM (#6706737)
        Not if you can make them cheap enough that you can have considerable overlap in coverage.

        if your maximum p2p range is 500 feet, and you have dropped these sensors every 100 feet, it would take a sharpshooter a LOT of ammo to make a big enough hole in this thing to sneak through... and by then, someone has already noticed that sensors have started malfunctioning in a strange way...

    • Re:How Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DrDebug ( 10230 )
      The guy that thought up the idea of a central state location hub for overnight delivery didn't get a very good grade on his paper either. He just went on and started FedEx.

      Don't get discouraged by narrow-minded instructors.

      • Oh, it didn't discourage me at all...

        I went on to design some pretty cool OC-48 and OC-192 Internet Backbones :)

        And I still havn't gotten around to going back and getting a degree.... :O

        The other fellow is right about sharpshooters, I had designed my sensors to look like mushrooms or rocks.

        A burrowing mine was also conidered, after I presented my paper. :)

        This type of mine field is also not a Denial of Area system, like you would use with tank mines, it is designed to prevent infiltrators, accross a la
    • How do you make the artilery not blow up the sensors? The enemy could just send a bunch of expendables into the area to do calisthenics until your artilery gratiously destroys your entire array. In most battle the US Army has fought in recent history they have been at a significant numerical disadvantage. None of our enemies would think twice about sending scouts into your minefield to take it out at the cost of their lives.
    • ...but also with infrared and motion sensors.
      ...'see' when anyone intrudes into that area.
      Slave THAT to some artilery

      If camels have nightmares, I think you just summed up what they are about.

    • Its already part of the plan. They are generally classified Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS). They then get subclassed into SLUGS/BUGS/MUGS. They can be deployed in various ways and then used to form a sensor fence in an area.

      The networking fits (mostly) the P2P definition. Its actually a MANET (Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking) implementation. Take a look around for the DARPA GloMoSim work or a couple other projects.

      When you get into actual explosive mines you are talking about SMARTAPAT (at least that used t
      • SUPER COOL!!!!
        How long ago was this implemented. do you know?

        So, how come we never hear about this when the Anti-Military/Anti Mine folks whine about the evils of the Military and its horrible maming of civilians with their EVIL MINES!!!!

        That was sarcasm, as we know text does not route sarcasm well...
  • by Anonymous Coward
    For taking part in a p2p network! The pirates!
  • what is it? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:08PM (#6706349) Homepage
    Officer: "Sir, it appears to be an Imperial probe droid."

    Commander: "That's it, everybody, shut down Kazaa, the RIAA has found our base!"

  • by vevva ( 693964 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:08PM (#6706356)
    The countermeasure is surely too straightforward - send a bunch of kids out to collect them.

    Unless they are fitted with antipersonnel devices (looking unlikely given the current trend towards banning cluster munitions) they will make nice souvenirs of the conflict.

    2 days after they are released in the wild we'll be bidding for them on eBay.
  • The nodes can also jam cellular communications by trasmitting a signal themselves.

    And if that doesn't work, the military sends in guys with bucket trucks to install Broadband over Power Line and it jams everything from DC to daylight.

  • by mkweise ( 629582 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:10PM (#6706374)
    The term Wolfpack [uboat.net] will forever be associated with the Nazi German Kriegsmarine.
  • by poptones ( 653660 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:12PM (#6706388) Journal
    And this right here is exactly why the military (likely to be joined by other governments) will do all it can to deter deployment of UWB. Once you have an infrastructure that is highly resistant to this sort of jamming, communications becomes nearly impossible to control.

  • Seriously, Operation Desert Storm, Tomohawk Missles, and now the Wolf Pack. Can't the army have more consumer friendly names with more pizazz.

    I nominate we rename it the Sniff 'n Shout. Or something in that vein
    • Operation Desert Storm

      There are numerous articles on this subject, and the Army acyually uses special guidelines when they name operations.
      A liutenant Sieminski wrote a article about this (do some googling).
      At the end of his article, Sieminski offers four guidelines for naming operations in the future.

      1. Make it meaningful.

      2. Identify and target the critical audience.

      3. Be cautious of fashions.

      4. Make it memorable.

      Operation Desert Storm was a good name but Operation Iraqi Freedom was even

      • I think they killed the idea to name it "Operation Iraqi Liberation" because of the resulting acronym.
      • I know you're probably just trolling, but what the hell:

        "someone wanted to call it "Operation Iraqi liberation" but for some reason they abadonded that"

        It was a little too meaningful. It spells OIL.

        "I think this was a good thing as the word "liberation" is a reference to a french word."
        Along with alot of our language; notably "Operation".

        "In a perfect world this would not be neccesary, but as long as the public is so relluctant to wars in general this is a good way to convince them to fight for the cou
  • by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:14PM (#6706403) Journal

    ...that seems to be mainly aimed at countering themselfs.

    Wait, don't mod me down just yet; let me elaborate on that. Basicly, you have two situations when in a military conflict: Either you are invading, in which cause you depend on mobile, wireless communication. Or you're defending, and that means most of the time relying on fixed lines of communication (fiberoptic cables buried deep in the ground is a favorite). Now, if you're using fixed lines of communications, you don't have to worry to much about these. Sure, some forms of landlines are radiates energy that can be detected by the 'wolfpack', but I've yet to hear about any armed forces worth it's salt that don't use encryption these days. If you're attacking however, you need to carry your own coms. Most armed forces don't roll in money the way the US forces do, so most forces has to rely on older equipment, like the good old AN/PRC [napcointer.com]-77 [armyradio.com]. And those can't be affected by a jammer designed to knock out cellular transmittions.

    On the lighter side, how long until the troops use this P2P-network to share violent videos and hard porn [aftenposten.no]?

    • A defense that is incapable of maneuver is next to useless.
    • by E-Rock ( 84950 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:41PM (#6706594) Homepage
      That's all good and well, except that the first thing you do when you invade is destroy those fixed lines of communication. Even if these fixed lines are made impregnable, commands to the field still need to be transmitted to mobile units. I also wouldn't assume that the full details of what these units can do was laid out in the very brief news article.
    • but I've yet to hear about any armed forces worth it's salt that don't use encryption these days.

      Hear about Chechenyans :) They've been succesfully opposing Russian army for quite a few years now and they commonly use standard unencrypted FM radios to communicate :) They are cheap, they are available, they are effective. And saved money could buy them more weapons...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:16PM (#6706416)
    Why is it that the people in uniform are ignored when they ask for some practical things like a newer fleet of air refueling tankers to replace the ageing fleet they have that is almost 40 years old, and they have to get tech toys that honestly would be useful only in urban battles in a first or second world nation, and not places like Afghanistan and the Iraqi desert? How would this have helped our people in Somalia? What about Yugoslavia? Even if we start in on a new country, it is likely to be Syria or Iran or N. Korea. If all this thing does is post a listening device and jam the signals, we have had that ability for the last 60 years.

    This looks like the results of a flashy bid for government dollars through a beurocratic bid system the values WOW glitz as higher than good ole useful application.

    • by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:28PM (#6706499) Journal

      Working in the norwegian armed forces myself - who has been trying to tell our politicans that a) running a defence costs money, b) doing a lot of operations overseas costs more, and c) we could really need more and newer fighters, preferable by 1997, and some new tanks, rifles, chemical protection suits and naval ships wouldn't be out of the way - I would say this has a simple reason.

      Buying 'more of the same' just ain't sexy enought.

      Nor does it look impressive. Telling your mistress that you signed a deal for a score of flying gasstation is not as cool as telling her you just signed a goverment contract to develop an airportable selfdeploying P2P network with cellular jamming capability.

      That, and we most not forget that the arnament industry in the western world is technologydriven. The defenceindustry comes up with something new and sexy, and off course the top brass goes along with it (see above for why). In the old eastern block, things worked (well, barly worked, but thats another matter) differently. The military went to the industry and said 'this is what we need, you have two years to come up with a solution'. Worked much better, at least as far as maintaining capabilities goes. A bit less so if your focus is on developing new capabilities thought...

      • by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:30PM (#6706903) Homepage Journal
        The defenceindustry comes up with something new and sexy, and off course the top brass goes along with it


        Damn man, I thought I was cynical about the leadership during my time in service, but you take the cake. The *primary* concern of the majority of the people at the top is, and always has been, "Will this save our troops lives and/or kill more of the enemy?" Every other consideration comes after that, and if you think otherwise you're insulting the hell out of a lot of people who care deeply about the lives of the men under their command. Granted, there may be the occassional officer who thinks nothing of the lives under him, but these are a rarity.

        American troops are constantly told that they are the best equipped, most highly trained military force on the planet. Making sure that it's true is a big chunk of military morale, and is official policy. Having that equipment be "sexy" also helps with morale. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, certainly not as simple as developing sexy military equipment to impress one's mistress.

        Give the brass *some* credit for not being total dipshits.

        • Oh well... I take it you was what we refer to as an 'indian'? In other word, a common soldier? Things looks different in differnt armed forces son, and they sure looks different when you got some stuff on your shoulders like I [easyspace.com] do. So no, I don't really give the top brass - most of which are civilian politicans anyway - much credit.

          As for your second paragraph.. beeing told something is not the same as it beeing true. True, the avrage US soldier carry more and newer equipment than most other soldiers... they

    • It will help us to fight off the inevitable alien invasion. Why do you think there is constant push for higher and higher tech weaponry even when the rest of the world has dropped way behind in weapons technology and R&D? It's 2012, man. That's when the fate of the mankind will be decided and we're gonna need every weapon the US military can devise.
  • Rat Pack (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gefiltefish11 ( 611646 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:18PM (#6706435)

    ...The direct predecessor to the Wolf Pack system, entitled Rat Pack, was such a high-profile failure that the entire program was nearly scrapped. The Rat Pack system utilized a similar deployment methodology and communicated via high-profile meetings in Las Vegas lounges, overly-dramatic publicity stunts, and awful movies. Further problems with the Rat pack systems were encountered when the missle-deployment system could not function without shattering a glass eye that was critical to Rat Pack's functioning...

  • Wow, I like it! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:19PM (#6706438) Homepage Journal
    Just let them "bomb" you, pick it, hack it and have a cool wireless p2p box. Imagine porting Kazaa to these! :)

    Seriously, remembering times from IIWW when in occupied Warsaw people commonly made grenades from dud bombs, that thing with some technology applied, could provide great means of communication network for the enemy :)
  • I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:21PM (#6706451) Homepage Journal
    They drop these. You pick them. They win the war, conquer your country and then sue you for stealing US government property. Sounds probably, doesn't it?
  • This reminds me of when, from the movie The Fifth Element [imdb.com], Zorg's main lackey was using a remote-controlled cockroach to listen in on the President's "secret plan" to send Bruce Willis to meet the Diva Plavalaguna on Planet Fhloston to get the stones and save the world...anyway, the President grabs a shoe and squishes the cockroach, sending a squeal of feedback into the lackey's ears, and sending waves of giggles into the audience... I wonder if, since these are so "secret", if it won't be the same type of
  • smart dust (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wannasleep ( 668379 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:28PM (#6706494)
    this seems the complement of the smart dust [berkeley.edu].
    The smart dust was supposed to be a 1 cube mm sensor with some computational power that was also supposed to transmit signals. I also recall that it was supposed to cost very few $ (one?). Clearly, you do not need parachutes for it and you can just deploy thousands on the battlefield or whatever you want to spy on. I don't know if these can send such a strong signal, but I believe that if you deploy enough of them you could. And being much smaller and many thousands, they would be much harder to get rid of. However, I haven't heard of smart dust in a while. Maybe they have perfected it and started using it. Or maybe the project just died.
    • Note in military environment it's not that much.
      Assume a typical new generation guided missile is about $1mln. A million pieces of the "dust" could cost maybe a bit more. Reasonably assuming communication range about 2m you can drop it with 1m spread and maintain communication between almost all of them. That's 50m wide, 2km long stripe of ground (and not only ground. Treetops and such too) monitored in such a way that nobody could pass unnoticed or alive. Now hook this to a few robotised machineguns and r
  • groovy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Biomechanoid ( 515993 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:36PM (#6706551)
    The nodes can also jam

    I was going to buy their music but after listening to it I think I will download it from KazAa in stead.
  • fyi (Score:2, Funny)

    by Robocrap ( 652257 )
    "Once the node lands, it stands up, extends its antenna and contacts other nodes."

    This just in: The Russians have developed nodes that land next to nodes already present on the battlefield, stand up, extend their antennae, and contact other nodes with information about hostile nodes on the battlefield.

    This just in: Americans have developed nodes that land next to Russian nodes that have landed next to their nodes. These American nodes, upon landing, stand up, extend their antennae, and contact other
  • Size & Mass (Score:3, Informative)

    by yardgnome ( 190624 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @12:52PM (#6706668) Homepage
    Did anyone else connect the reported dimensions with the reported mass? It's supposed to be a 6" tall x 4" wide cylinder...that weighs SIX POUNDS. That's incredibly tightly packed! Which I guess makes sense if you're going to fit a balloon antenna, motors for standing up via the fins, and a CPU in that small package. I wonder if/when the public will reap the benefits of that kind of miniaturization?
  • by photon317 ( 208409 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:04PM (#6706747)
    Units can stay powered for up to two months in the field, and can be later collected and re-used. Each node costs around $10,000.


    If I were a low-income thug and the US military invaded my country and sprayed the land with these things, I would probably run around and pick them up for resale. They start at 6x4 inches, but then they extend fins and an inflatable antenna, which should make them pretty easy targets to spot. And I bet to foreign military hands, they're worth more than the $10K they cost the US military. All things considered I could probably feed my family for 10 years by picking up 5 of them or so and selling them on the black market.
  • by mikerich ( 120257 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:24PM (#6706839)
    Any chance the US military could drop a couple of million coast to coast across the United States? Might get a decent mobile network that way.

    They could even claim it was 'field testing'.

    Best wishes,
    Mike.

  • by blchrist ( 695764 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:41PM (#6706997)
    The military is not going to deploy something that will disrupt its own ability to communicate on the battlefield.

    from the article: without hindering US forces' own communications systems. Clearly the DoD thought this through a little more than most people here give them credit for.

    IMO this is a really cool project. All the people complaining about the gamma ray "nuke" should be happy about this method of disrupting communications without bombing things.

  • by mustangsal66 ( 580843 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @01:53PM (#6707114)
    I've got the case design down pat...

    WeebleWobbles...

    They're self righting... "They weeble and they wobble, but they don't fall down"

    I even have the project name down:
    WWWWF

    (WeebleWobbles with WiFi)

    Who's With Me???
  • by Snags ( 18929 ) * on Friday August 15, 2003 @03:03PM (#6707631) Journal
    These devices could serve as a communications system to get information to/from special forces soldiers during covert ops. With a guaranteed friendly receiver within maybe a mile, an extremely low power could be used for the soldier to transmit. Add encryption, compression, and a high bandwidth, and only short, un-sniffable, non-locatable transmissions could be used. The "Pringles cans" would even lay down a base of inteference so that actual communications would be impossible to spot.

    The function of a single can would be some combination of:

    • if a friendly base is within range, establish a link
    • keep a network going with neighboring cans, passing data around as necessary
    • listen for friendly communications to forward
    • listen for hostile comm. to intercept
    • jam hostile comm.
    • act as a smart mine in case of enemy tampering?

    Maybe they could even have solar cells to make them last more than 2 months in the field.

  • by Embedded Geek ( 532893 ) on Friday August 15, 2003 @03:59PM (#6707987) Homepage
    There's been suggestions by other posters about putting sensors in these cylinders and also questions about making the packages survive the drop. The fact is this has all been done before.

    The U.S. military actually used a lower tech version of the sensor net along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in 1966. The program was called "Igloo White" and involved a number of audio and seismic sensors. Check out this link [rand.org] and look at page 11 for details. Very interesting read.

    Some bits:

    • Initially unit cost was $2145 and battery life was two weeks. By the end of the program, the battery was improved (the paper doesn't say by how much, though) and the units costed as little as $15. Presumably, costs would drop similarly when the modern version gets fielded.
    • IBM 360-65 mainframes were used to correlate massive amounts of data and choose targets for strikes, although the effectiveness of the system (like almost everything deployed in Vietnam) was likely exagerated.
    • Some sensors were booby trapped to prevent tampering. Nevertheless, some North Vietnamese troops developed countermeasures - shooting dropped units out of trees, playing tape recordings of trucks near them, or (presumably for chemical sensors) placing bags of livestock urine nearby.

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Working...