Battlefield Combat Identification (BCID)

[Enzo]

I'm curious as to the opinions to be found here regarding this evolving technology. From the DP&M website: (http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/ddm/scip/annex/ct04_e.asp#36.5)

Small Arms Replacement Program II

This project proposes to replace or upgrade current small fire-arm weapons to satisfy requirements of the future battlespace.

Equipment description:

The current family of small arms is based on the C7A1 assault rifle, the C8 carbine, the C9A1 light machinegun, the C6 general-purpose machine gun and the .50 cal heavy machinegun. The current weapons do not offer the integration with the future Canadian soldier system. They do not have integral full solution day/night fire control system needed in the future battlespace. They do not have an Identification Friend or Fow capability.

It's the IFF capability that interests me the most. I know how I feel about wearing technology that automatically transmits my position to anyone with the "proper, encoded receiver." Anyone have something positive to say about this concept, aside from hopefully preventing our allies from accidentally dropping ordinance without identifying the target beforehand?

Ok, as I said, I know how I feel about this (obvious bias noted); what are others thoughts?

 

[ArmyAviator]

While I can't give you a soldiers perspective on the IFF issue, I can tell you from an Aviation perspective we wouldn't go flying in a combat zone without one. Even after the shooting war in Kosovo was done and the LFs moved in, everything that flew in the theatre had to have IFF mode 4 on.   If your mode 4 busted you would have to wait for another helicopter to come and escort you back to the camp.   If mode 1 or 2 broke you could complete your mission before going back for repairs.

(The IFF system in an military AC has 4 modes. Mode 3 is for civy ATC and it responds to any interrogation and is turned off during potential hostilities.   Mode 1 and 2 are other IFF programming options for ID from friendly air defence and are only used when on - or in range of - the friendly side of the lines and when approaching your routes in and out of the IADS.   These would be turned off when going into bad guy country.   Obviously with the Griffon we won't be turning off 1 and 2 very often.)

The IFF (or mode 4) stays passive until interrogated by the proper codes.   Therefore it will not be continually transmitting your position.   The bad guys would have to have a very, very, sophisticated and extensive ELINT system to put together a battlefield picture of troop dispostion from our mode 4 interrogations.

FWIW I hope this helps

 

[kyleg]

It sounds great in theory, but anyone that's used a 521 knows that batteries (and the wretched electronics they're attached to) and infantry don't mix. What happens when my fancy little transceiver dies and my buddy's rifle can't ID me as I make my way back to our hide? What ever happened to the good ol' password system? Or, for more slience, light authentication (you know, challenge with one long and two short flashes, proper response is one long, one short, one long, for example). Even once they can make a scope rugged AND light enough to be used either in the field or on ops that has this identification technology, how are we, the soldiers, supposed to service it? God knows I'm not carrying around a laptop just incase I need to reprogram my electronic ID tag or scope. Rather than focusing on solving the friendly fire problem with gadgetry why not try and fix the REAL problem, that of communication at every level. If I'm on OP and I know a patrol should be coming in around 0430, and a group of 4 guys comes walkin by at 0435 I can usually be pretty confident that they're friendly. And if they aren't (which can be (and SHOULD be) easily verified with a password) I act according to the ROEs.

Granted, some of this may sound a little idealistic but what I'm really trying to get accross is that we don't NEED fancy IDs and scopes to eliminate friendly fire. I prefer the simplest solution, because the less that there is happening the less there is that can go wrong.

 

[KevinB]

Its the same BOZO's who bought into the OICW concept...  They (Soldier Systems) are hooked into Land / Future Warrior down south, the same shmos that think XM-8 is th ebest thing since sliced bread.

Must be nice to sit on the Rideau and believe that just cause you see it on a video game - it means it will work in real life.

 

[Canadian Sig]

I work in a truck filled with all the newest and coolest electronics we own and it often fails to work as advertised. Now how well can I trust those electronics to identify me to my buddy in the dark and confusion of a night action? Think I prefer the KISS principle thanks.

 

[KevinB]

I buy into the Low Tech methods for IFF from STANO - but any electronics or somethign that is supposed to rule me out due to another electronic - no thanks.

I go with Glint tape or someone method - and TRAINING

 

[Infanteer]

Must be nice to sit on the Rideau and believe that just cause you see it on a video game - it means it will work in real life.

Well, as a matter of fact the sky is blue in my world.... :blotto:

 

[Fraser.g]

I work in a truck filled with all the newest and coolest electronics we own and it often fails to work as advertised. Now how well can I trust those electronics to identify me to my buddy in the dark and confusion of a night action? Think I prefer the KISS principle thanks.

And that is why I carry an umbrella in theater.

 

[Enzo]

KISS and training works for me.

I always think of the Apache footage from that "Friendly Fire" incident in the first Gulf War on 16 Feb 91. The gun camera footage was released and you can clearly see the silhoutettes of the vehicles, which are also quite clearly not Russian BMPs or such. Granted, the chain of errors that night is well documented and the finger pointing abounds, but at the end of the day, isn't proper target/vehicle identification something that training should account for? An over-reliance upon technology creates room for errors, such as that night. I appreciate technology, I'm using it right now, but I'm not a slave to it. The decision to pull the trigger shouldn't solely be relied upon simply because an IFF computer says so. Target verification and threat assessment should always include the mind of the person who has their finger on that trigger. About that particular incident referenced above, approximately 10,000 Apache sorties were flown during that campaign, and that was the sole Apache Friendly incident that I am aware of. Such fire happens in warfare, always has. Doesn't mean we like it, but beware the cure as much as the condition.

As a final thought, when was the last time CF personnel were involved in a Friendly Fire (always love that term, what's friendly about it?) incident in which they pulled the trigger?


Something to chew on:
A buddy of mine worked in Haiti a few years ago, he brought this back. A local policeman thanked him; my bud asked why, the response during the conversation was something like this, "The Americans came and taught us how to shoot, then you Canadians came and taught us when to shoot."

 

[s23256]

I took part in a very limited trial of this sort of system in which a red or green LED in front of the sight lit up when an interrogation button on the weapon was pushed in order to simulate a BCID system.  I noted that even in a controlled relaxed environment some people continued to pull the trigger when the system told them not to.  I imagine that under more stressfull conditions this phenomenon might well be exacerbated.  I also agree that it would be difficult to make such a system survivable under field conditions and that the consequences of a malfunction could be disastrous.  All in all I think it's a nice idea in theory but probably impossible in practice.

 

[Canadian Sig]

No matter how small or low powered, all electronic kit emits radiation and an enemy who has good EW assets can track you via those emissions. It's bad enough that my truck has a huge electronic "signature" I don't really need one coming from my helmet/vest. You would be surprised at what EW can track. Think I would prefer that you just payed attention and were sure of what/who you shot at.