• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Disruptive Thinking and How the iPad Changed Close Air Support in Afghanistan

M

MikeL

Guest
http://disruptivethinkers.blogspot.ca/2012/05/lessons-in-how-ipad-changed-close-air.html?m=1

Monday, May 14, 2012Disruptive Thinking and How the iPad Changed Close Air Support in Afghanistan

In the essay below, Capt. Michael Christman describes how an innovative junior officer took matters into his own hands, and in defiance of a reluctant bureaucracy, created an efficient and comprehensive solution using off the shelf, modern technology.  It has helped transform tactical employment, and saved lives on the battlefield.  He explores why the project was ultimately successful, and how others can emulate it.  In many ways, it is an answer to the questions posed a few days ago by 1LT Atwell.

Dropping a bomb from 25,000 feet (or hovering just above the treetops) with an acceptable error of mere meters, only 500 feet away from friendly positions, is a challenge.  However, Close Air Support (CAS) is one of the finest examples of joint operational teamwork in the military.  It requires a high degree of coordination between airborne and ground based assets, many of whom have never met, and are from different services -- even different countries. 

Integral to this coordination are the use of Gridded Reference Graphics (GRG's) that airborne fixed wing and helicopter aircraft use when identifying friendly and enemy positions (see sketch below).  In the past, they were simply printed products, hard to keep organized, within a cockpit undergoing heavy G's and dynamic maneuvers. New products have changed the calculus.

Most Marine Corps aviators who have served in Afghanistan in a close air support role are familiar with the over 1,000 maps that make up the Helmand Valley.  These maps are made using high resolution imagery with every building identified by a unique number.  Such products enable aircrew to quickly correlate friendly and enemy locations, more effectively providing accurate and timely aviation fires for ground based units. This, in turn, saves the lives of young Americans and their allies.

Until recently, aircrew carried all 1000 map sheets individually.  To find the right one required sorting through 30 lbs of paper to find the appropriate gridded reference graphic for a specific operational area.  In fact, there are so many maps, they won’t all physically fit inside the cockpit -- an operational liability if you are told to provide support in an unanticipated area.  Additionally, finding the right map could take several minutes -- precious time during a fire fight.

In order to solve this problem, an enterprising AH-1W Cobra attack helicopter pilot, Captain Jim “Hottie” Carlson, developed an application to electronically digitize and stitch these map sheets together so that a pilot could view them on an iPad.  With the iPad’s embedded GPS, the Cobra now has a portable moving map, something that the early 1990’s era helicopter lacks.  A single tablet also contains every conceivable map in an incredibly light and easily accessible touchscreen.  Updates to the local geography and existing products are made with a simple download. 

Of his own initiative and without official Marine Corps support, Captain Carlson provided his aging aircraft with a navigational system as advanced any available in the civilian world.  This leap in capability cost less than $1000 per aircraft.  Remarkably, an entire Marine Corps Cobra squadron can now be outfitted with iPads for less than the cost of fuel for one day of combat operations in Afghanistan.

While the technical details of the “Combat iPad” are best left for another discussion, the interesting story lies in exploring the key factors that allowed Captain Carlson, along with several other individuals, to overcome the bureaucratic hurdles they faced in bringing this program to operators.

First and foremost, Captain Carlson was the right person in the right place at the right time.  As one of the senior pilots on the deployment, Captain Carlson had the tactical expertise and credibility to both understand the problem and navigate the bureaucratic morass of the Marine Corps.  Integral to this was a technical background (a computer science major) that allowed him to view the problem from a different perspective and create a unique solution. 

Second, Captain Carlson had the support of key players both in the squadron and at the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW).  LtCol William “Hoss” Bufkin, a Cobra pilot who served on the Wing staff, was in the perfect position to help work through the bureaucratic red tape needed to bring these tablets to the battlefield.  LtCol Bufkin had previously served as an evaluation pilot with the AH-1Z upgrade program and was no stranger to the aviation procurement process.  With his experience, he was able to work through or around many of the top level challenges of procuring iPads and getting approval for their use in flight.  LtCol Bufkin knew that the bureaucracy would tell him “no” when it came to asking for this new technology, but had the will to effectively fight the system in order to get this critical piece of equipment to the fleet.


... continued on link

 
That is quite awesome. Incidentally, I had just started writing a program to take Military maps, digatalize them, stitch them together, and run off a smartphone, like iphone or 'droid.
 
Now is this a coincidence....or are they related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_Carlson

Evans Carlson was the founder of the USMC Raider Bn "Carlson's Raiders"  in WWII.

Captain Jim “Hottie” Carlson developed an IPad app for combat ops.

Is there a connection here?
 
Jim Seggie said:
Now is this a coincidence....or are they related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_Carlson

Evans Carlson was the founder of the USMC Raider Bn "Carlson's Raiders"  in WWII.

Captain Jim “Hottie” Carlson developed an IPad app for combat ops.

Is there a connection here?
I'd bet you there is.  Evans is quite the grizzled looking old bird.  Tough as a Boondocker I'd bet too.
 
Brigadier General Carlson died in 1947 leaving a widow and one son from a previous marriage. It is a stretch, but maybe . . . Or it could be the Viking thing!
 
Dkeh said:
That is quite awesome. Incidentally, I had just started writing a program to take Military maps, digatalize them, stitch them together, and run off a smartphone, like iphone or 'droid.

I used the iPad article as part of an OPME Technology paper.  It's definitely a needed step forward, especially in the cramped cockpits of Tac Hel and such.  Hopefully, the days of the shoulder-breaking Nav bag will be gone *fingers crossed*.
 
Without even mentioning COMSEC, which is a legitimate, if seriously somewhat overestimated concern, you need to be aware of EMC ~ electromagnetic compatibility.

Your iPad emits electromagnetic (radio frequency) energy, and not just when it is transmitting; so do pretty much all the devices, not just electronic devices, weither, in your helicopter (or tank or LAV or ship or, or or ....) and they all receive all the energy everything else emits. Some of the energy is certainly going to fall into the category of "harmful interference" but you may find it very hard to detect and you may not notice the harmful effect until a critical system in your aircraft fails to do something you wanted it to do ... and you begin to fall out of the sky.

Adding one more device into even the most complex environment rarely causes a disaster, but the complexity of modern systems should make us cautious.
 
This could go hand in hand with other checklists, manuals, etc. Delta Airlines is running a trial with iPad apps that replace most of the bulk that pilots have to carry.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Without even mentioning COMSEC, which is a legitimate, if seriously somewhat overestimated concern, you need to be aware of EMC ~ electromagnetic compatibility.

Just stick it in a faraday cage......er, no GPS then huh..... :)
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Without even mentioning COMSEC, which is a legitimate, if seriously somewhat overestimated concern, you need to be aware of EMC ~ electromagnetic compatibility.

Your iPad emits electromagnetic (radio frequency) energy, and not just when it is transmitting; so do pretty much all the devices, not just electronic devices, weither, in your helicopter (or tank or LAV or ship or, or or ....) and they all receive all the energy everything else emits. Some of the energy is certainly going to fall into the category of "harmful interference" but you may find it very hard to detect and you may not notice the harmful effect until a critical system in your aircraft fails to do something you wanted it to do ... and you begin to fall out of the sky.

Adding one more device into even the most complex environment rarely causes a disaster, but the complexity of modern systems should make us cautious.

Edward,

All of this is true. However, I have found our Air Force reluctant to even consider conducting the proper trials for new technologies such as noted above.  Hence, junior aviators give up trying to bring new ideas to the table and legacy systems get increasingly less useful.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Edward,

All of this is true. However, I have found our Air Force reluctant to even consider conducting the proper trials for new technologies such as noted above.  Hence, junior aviators give up trying to bring new ideas to the table and legacy systems get increasingly less useful.

If we never try, how are we going to know?
 
We They You are too risk averse. Even tests have risks: the biggest is that the <device or system> might fail the test and someone, usually a senior NCO or junior officer will end up wearing the blame. It, getting blamed, makes people reluctant to move an idea, even a really good idea, up the chain.

I hate to think of how many approving authorities there are in Ottawa for major/complex systems - back in the 1990s I was one of them (for every electromagnetics issue, real or imagined) and I was usually on the second or third page of the sign off sheet! I did not do "back of the cigareete package" technical analyses and sign off just becase Joe, the PM, was a friend ~ even silly ideas required a professional, and, therefore, expensive analysis and, if it passed the theoretical analysis an even more expensive lab test. Now, most often, a serving engineering officer - EngPhys graduate - was able to screen out the obviously nutty ideas but still a lot of people had ideas that merited real, professional work. I had to argue hard for my annual analysis and test budget and again for the (pretty much permanent) overspending of same. But that was 20 years ago and my masters (at the three star level) were more interested in giving the fleet, the field force and the flying squadrons whatever we could rather than in covering their own asses.

But I cannot, in conscience, advocate just taking your iPad into the cockpit and "having a go" - things do go wrong, I've seen 'em, and Murphy's Law is absolute and inviolable.
 
A lot of us have our own tablets here on Op Attention, to bring manuals and translated lesson plans to monitor class work. The ANA need to see something written down to prove it to them, so it really helps when you have things right at your finger-tips. I even found a Dari phrasebook for Android written for some US Army competition. Has a whack of phrases if I ever get caught without an interpreter.
 
So long as due consideration is given to the technical and operational concerns of using such technology, I see this as a very good thing.  The enhancement to, in this case, operational effectiveness and efficiency is equally applicable to technicians using the most up to date information and procedures to maintain a safe and effective air capability.  We will no doubt see more of this kind of system, complementing on-board embedded systems,
in the future.

Regards
G2G
 
Having done helicopter navigation prior to GPS using aerial photo's for airborne geophysics I can relate to the issues of papermaps in the cockpit. We spent a couple of hours surveying the wrong stretch of river as their was not enough room in the front of the Hughes 500 to open the maps up.

Kudos to these people, the US military has a lot of bright people working for them who can whip something up quickly. It may not be perfect, but it beats dropping a bomb on the wrong people.
 
For my third and final Fallex, the biggest exercise that NATO ever held with 250,000 troops in the field, we had 1:50,000 scale maps that, when folded up (no Map Tac), were about the size of a large briefcase.

On top of that, our Observers had to juggle binos (stab or conventional according to personal preference), aides-memoire, codes, and the ever-present bottle of 90+% alcohol Schnaps.

A Kiowa cockpit had less room than the front seat area of an original-model VW Beetle.












Okay, I'm kidding about the Schnaps, but it was cramped in there.
 
Loachman said:
For my third and final Fallex, the biggest exercise that NATO ever held with 250,000 troops in the field, we had 1:50,000 scale maps that, when folded up (no Map Tac), were about the size of a large briefcase.

On top of that, our Observers had to juggle binos (stab or conventional according to personal preference), aides-memoire, codes, and the ever-present bottle of 90+% alcohol Schnaps.

A Kiowa cockpit had less room than the front seat area of an original-model VW Beetle.












Okay, I'm kidding about the Schnaps, but it was cramped in there.

Fortunately for the Free World, you were so slim and agile back then it didn't matter, right?  ;D
 
That's patently false..................






The Romans didn't have Kiowa's..........they had Huey's...... ;D
 
Loachman said:
Romans.

Psshhhaaaawww.

Arrogant braggarts.

What did they ever do for us?

They gave us the standard gage used on today's railroad. :nod:
 
Back
Top