[Milsurplus] MAB vs BC-611

[Mike Hanz]

It's getting better, Dave.  The big problem is training someone these 
days to think of the myriad details involved in close air support.  In 
the time I've been working in the IT evolution of the Joint National 
Training Capability, I noticed that JCAS has had sort of a poster child, 
"first outta the box" focus to get things working right.  More than 60 
other joint activities are following on the heels of that one.  See 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Dec/MilitaryStepsUpTraining.htm 
for an overview of the progress being made.

Sadly for us old timers, perhaps, the level of plain ol' voice contact 
is dropping fast - you need pretty precise coordinates to avoid 
fratricide or hitting something you don't want to hit.

73,
Mike

David Stinson wrote:

> Mike Morrow wrote:
>
>
>> What did the BC-1000 talk to?  Its 40 to 48 MC span did not overlap 
>> the span
>> of any of the higher powered sets,......
>
>
> Perhaps it had to do with an old but continuing problem:
> There was/has been a long-standing and, IMHO, short-sighted attitude
> in the armed forces that "we don't want some scared corporal calling
> in air (tank, etc.) strikes"  The idea was to tightly control
> to whom a front-line grunt can speak directly.
> His message has to go through several layers so each can
> "bless" it and pass it along.  This cost lives as late as Somalia,
> and probably since then, though I hear it's gotten better.
> I think the "right" answer was better training and discipline
> for the radio operator, not layers of (mis)management.
>
> D.S.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>