Feral Jundi

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Technology: SBInet Redux And Drones In Texas

Filed under: Arizona,Aviation,California,New Mexico,Technology,Texas — Matt @ 12:47 AM

I think this is great that they are looking to bring back some form of SBInet and tap into what is currently available on the market to get the job done. There are tons of cool sensors and technologies that folks can use to get the job done, and probably for a whole lot cheaper than what was originally intended.

But the other component of this must be human. You have to have enough folks to respond to all and any incidents out there, and the best sensors and interdiction devices are human brains mounted on two feet. That is why I like the idea of moving more folks near the border and creating FOBs or Stations throughout the border. Get those human sensors called Border Patrol closer to the action. To own terrain, means being on that terrain, and I really don’t think commuting to those areas is the way to go.

I kind of look at this like forest fire fighting, and we had camps strategically located throughout the forests of the West. We have state camps and federal camps, or ‘stations’. Firefighters actually live at these camps during the summers, and these camps keep them close to the action. If the Border Patrol’s ‘forest’ is that border, then they should have stations dispersed properly throughout that border to cover every square inch of that thing.

I should also note that this FOB idea or stations along the border is nothing new. I am sure numerous groups have been screaming for this to happen for awhile. The Arizona Cattleman’s Association even called them FOB’s in their report, as a homage (probably) to the outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the advent of armed smugglers and drug dealers, maybe FOB’s is a more appropriate term for these stations, than just a ‘station’. And with all of these drones and sensors, you gotta have some officers close to the action in order to act on that information and work with the ‘eye in the sky’. –Matt

Edit: 5/20/2010 -Check out this story on SBInet, and why it failed originally.

——————————————————————–

Technology Continues to Flow to Southwest Border

June 2010

By Stew Magnuson

While the Department of Homeland Security conducts a program review of its troubled border fence program, Customs and Border Protection has not stopped deploying new sensors in the Southwest, said a senior DHS official.

The Secure Border Initiative’s technology piece, known as SBInet, was designed to create “virtual fences” along remote parts of the northern and southern borders. The program suffered delays, setbacks and cost overruns for years, but the Obama administration signaled its intent to proceed with the plan and field a second version of the system of sensors, cameras and a communications backbone that would tie them all together. That was before the airing of a 60 Minutes report that repeated the conclusions of several Government Accountability Office and DHS inspector general investigations that said the system did not work as envisioned. Two days before the broadcast, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that SBInet was on hold and that there would be a sweeping review that would look for possible alternatives to the program.

Nevertheless, the department is continuing to spend money on border technology, CBP Commissioner Alan Bersen told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The agency has spent $50 million of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money to deploy proven surveillance systems along the border. The bulk of that, $37 million, has been used to purchase several mobile surveillance systems — a suite of sensors mounted on a rugged truck that can be driven to hotspots along the border. The Border Patrol has also received $12.3 million to spend on thermal and backscatter imagers. CBP’s Air and Marine division has received $4.5 million to buy thermal imaging and other cameras for its boats and aircraft.

The key difference is that these are “commercially available, stand-alone” technologies, Bersen testified. No money has been allocated for networking the sensors into a larger communications system.

Story here.

——————————————————————

FAA OKs Drones For Texas Border

May 17, 2010

By Mary GradyThe FAA has approved a Certification of Authorization (COA) for an unmanned aerial vehicle to patrol a portion of the U.S.-Mexico border extending from Arizona to the El Paso region of Texas effective June 1. This is one of two COAs that have been submitted to the FAA seeking approval for UAV flights along the Texas-Mexico border.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Parachuting: Special Forces Get The New MC-6, Marines Get The New T-11

   I perked up when I saw a story mentioning smokejumpers in the Stars and Stripes, and this is what they were talking about. Strategy Page just posted about it as well.  The parachute that they were discussing is called the MC 6,  and it has a different name in the smokejumpers. It is called the FS 14 canopy.  It is a round (shape of the canopy) chute, and it is great for steep descents into tight jump spots surrounded by tall trees.  It is also steerable, and you can get different sizes of chutes, depending on the weight and size of the jumper.  I jumped a large when I was using the canopy in the Forest Service, and they are the ones who primarily use this canopy. I think the smallest spot surrounded by trees that I ever jumped with this parachute was the size of a small house. This parachute struggles in higher winds though, and I like a different parachute for that stuff.

   When it comes to a great all around parachute for rough terrain parachuting, I preferred the RAM Air DC 7 canopy or square canopy. The MC 5 is the military equivalent.  This parachute looks like the sport parachutes you see in the civilian world, and they are very nice.

  This parachute is primarily used by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service is slowly transitioning to this parachute. As we speak, they are doing cross training between the two organizations in order to gain proficiency. The BLM uses this parachute for the Great Basin in the western US, and up in Alaska.  Both areas have higher winds, and big open areas.  But both areas also have their mountains and trees to jump into.  Having jumped rounds and squares (parachute types), I would have to go with squares as being the best all around parachute to use for all types of terrain. What I imagine the SF is doing, is just having the option to use either the MC 5 or the MC 6, depending upon the mission. That is smart, but hopefully they are proficient on both, and muscle memory doesn’t screw them up while using one parachute or the other.  You definitely have to know each parachute and it’s deployment system very well in order to get a good parachuting strategy for getting on the ground safely and in rough terrain.

   As for the T 11, it looks interesting, but I really cannot comment on it.  Just as long as it is stable, easy to control, and gets the guys on the ground safely, then I am all for it.

   Now what is exciting about the T-11 and the MC-6 is that both of these parachutes will make parachute operations a tad more safer, and make the option of airborne operations in war a little more feasible for future missions.  Who knows, maybe the military might take another look at Fire Force  type operations as a viable way of attacking enemies?  Parachuting troops in places like Afghanistan, might be a safer option than flying in with helicopters or driving in via convoys.  Parachuting also distributes the forces more.  One missile or one IED can take out a multitude of troops in a helicopter or vehicle.  Parachuting soldiers who are only exposed in the air for around 40 plus seconds, can make them very spread out and very hard to shoot.

    And because the Taliban are such poor shots, I don’t think they could be very effective at shooting soldiers out of the sky as they parachute to the ground. Especially if there is a sniper team on the ground, or some airship circling around and lighting up any enemy forces that want to take a shot. With good night vision kit, and safer parachutes, night time operations might also be more feasible as well.  I am sure airborne troops have thought about all of this stuff for our current wars, and it would be interesting to hear some of their ideas. You just don’t hear a lot about parachuting operations in this war, and it might be worth some further exploration.  Especially if the military is going to invest millions of dollars into two new canopies for the troops, as well as cycle thousands of troops through airborne training. By the way, bravo to the guys at Paraflite for making some awesome parachutes. –Matt

—————————————————-

MC 6

MC 6 parachute.

T 11 parachute. 

Special Forces look to smoke jumpers for new parachutes

By Warren Peace

May 4, 2010

STUTTGART, Germany — Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group recently got a chance to try out the Army’s new MC-6 parachute, which they say will be put to good use when dropping into tight combat zones in Afghanistan.

The MC-6 is more maneuverable than the aging MC-1, which has been used by Special Forces soldiers for years, and the Stuttgart-based soldiers are the first unit in Europe to train with the new chute.

When searching for a new parachute that could drop them into a small landing area, Army Special Forces looked to the smoke jumpers, who are tasked with descending into the heart of Rocky Mountain forest fires, said David Roy, program leader for the MC-6.

“The U.S. forest services have been using this canopy for about 16 years now,” Roy said. “They use it to get into postage-size drop zones in the Rockies as they go to put out fires.”

Plus, the small drop zones and high altitudes of the Rocky Mountains are very similar to the conditions faced by airborne soldiers in Afghanistan, said Maj. Jason Morneault, assistant product manager for Program Manager Clothing and Individual Equipment for the Army.

(more…)

Technology: California Ranchers Wield British Radar To Detect Illegal Border Crossers

   Thanks to Cannoneer #4 for sending me this, and this is an excellent addition to The Defense of Farms and Ranches post.  The other thing I like about articles like this, is it highlights exactly what works and what doesn’t work out there.  What these ranchers are dealing with, is a daily issue that has been going on for years.  An individual protecting his land will come across a multitude of ideas, and try everything under the sun to get a job done.  They will also be pushing that equipment’s lifespan to the limits, and all of this information about the products longevity and usefulness is vital to other end users and to the company that made it.

   Personally, I have not used this product, so I cannot endorse it. I also have no connection to the company, and this just came across my desk as something that was interesting.  If any FJ readers have experience with this equipment, I am sure the rest of the readership would be interested to hear about that-good or bad. –Matt

——————————————————————–

Blighter B202

Calif. Ranchers Wield British Radar to Detect Illegal Border Crossers

December 2009

By Grace V. Jean

LONDON — Frustrated by trespassers attempting to cross into the United States illegally, ranch owners in southern California have purchased a British radar in an effort to protect their property and to help Border Patrol agents nab more intruders.

The Blighter B202 Radar, developed by Plextek Ltd., an electronics and communications design consultancy based near Cambridge, U.K., detects people walking or crawling through the rocky, hilly landscape from four kilometers away, says Nicholas Booth, manager of Blighter sales and marketing.

The man-portable, scanning radar is mounted on a tripod and runs on rechargeable lithium ion batteries. It has a 20-degree wide vertical elevation beam that permits the detection of targets in the distance as well as up close.

“You can see people walking up and down the mountain and on the plains at the same time,” says Booth.

Traditional radars would require tilting to cover the same area.

(more…)

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Training: Maritime Academy To Offer Field Training On The Use Of Small Arms

   This is cool, and thanks to David for sending me this link.  Now what would really be cool, is to use your GI Bill for this training.  Also, if you follow the link to the academy, there are other interesting courses and licenses that you can get that relate to maritime security and boat work.

   The other significance in this, is that CMADEL, along with other maritime academies, are now starting to focus on this stuff.  I think it is a sign of the times, and this focus on teaching crews to use something a little more substantial than water cannons, starts with teaching weapons handling during the education process. Although like the Captain said in the earlier article I posted, if vetting is an issue on these boats, then you will still need professionals that you can trust to do this work.  But some armed crew members on a boat, is better than no armed crew members on a boat, and this is a good step in the right direction. If any of the readers have other academy links to training similar to this, feel free to post away in the comments section. Especially if you have any educational stuff that can be paid for by the GI Bill. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Maritime Academy to offer field training on use of small arms

Times-Herald staff report

03/08/2010

California Maritime Academy’s Department of Extended Learning is a three-day practical field training course on appropriate use of small arms on government-chartered and commercial vessels worldwide.

The certified small arms training course will be held March 22-24 and April 13-15 on the Vallejo campus, with range instruction in Richmond.

The new course is focused on the specialized challenges of deploying small arms in the maritime environment, Dean of Extended Learning James Burns said.

Class participants must either have a Transport Workers Identification Card (TWIC), a current U.S. Coast Guard MMD/License or be a certified peace officer, and must have no felony convictions.

The $1,500 cost includes use of weapons, targets and training aids. Another $300 is needed to cover ammunition. Upon completion, participants receive a certification form DD 2760 and 2.4 continuing education credits from the University.

For more information visit www.maritime-education.com or call (707) 654-1157.

(more…)

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Bounties: $50,000 For The 20 Questions Bandits And $10,000 For The Blue Note Bandit, California

   I hope these thugs get caught, and it would be really cool if it was a FJ reader.  It’s stuff like this, where a Bounty Hunter Mobile Application would totally shine.  Both Bank of America and Wells Fargo could have easily signed on with mobile application, and updated the last known position as tips and information come in.  It would be a way for their investigators to basically crowd source Southern California and the US in order to get these guys. –Matt

——————————————————————

$50,000 offered for violent bank robbers

By SALVADOR HERNANDEZ

January 25, 2010

The ’20 questions bandits’ are believed to be responsible for at least six violent take-over bank robberies across three Southern California counties, authorities said.

Bank of America is offering up to $50,000 in exchange for information leading to their arrest.

During the six armed robberies, the four unidentified men assaulted bank employees and at times, also robbed customers of their belongings, according to a statement released by the FBI.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress