Archer -- Ever really used?

[LittleIronPilot]

I took the test and I made in the 80's I believe (I know it was at least above 80 because I passed! )

I have a Bachelors in IT, military and law enforcement experience, Secret clearance and until recently my squadron had an Archer plane.

I took the test last year and STILL have not heard a yeah, or even a nay, in terms of training.

Oh well.......

[cnitas]

I took the test and I made in the 80's I believe (I know it was at least above 80 because I passed! )

I have a Bachelors in IT, military and law enforcement experience, Secret clearance and until recently my squadron had an Archer plane.

I took the test last year and STILL have not heard a yeah, or even a nay, in terms of training.

Oh well.......

Welcome to the club.

[california IC]

qoute "The biggie of course was the Fosset search and I haven't heard what was learned from that operation."

The ARCHER did locate old and previously known but forgotten aircraft but more interestingly it located an elevator that fell off a crashed GA aircraft that was being flown out after crashing miles away.  It was blue in color and rather small,  not more than one foot by three and located in the brush.  It was not seen by any previous search aircraft that had flown the grid.  But it was not ARCHER that found it, it was the skilled and motivated operator going through hours of flight data on the ground.  When the mission was suspended, there were still hours of flight data that had not been reviewed.  I am not sure if all of it has been done to date.  But I could see where some operators were much more motivated and skilled than others.  Seems like everyone wants to fly the mission but few want to review the data...especially on a long mission.

[RiverAux]

I'm still seeing contradictory statements about how many old wrecks were found during the Fossett search coming out of CAP.  Wish that would get cleared up someday. 

[california IC]

Unless somebody else has newer information, in California, only old, known crashes were "relocated".  I think the same is true in Nevada.

[DNall]

I repsectfully disagree

The Archer is infact ahead of its time for CAP, our organization has not Always been just SAR, we have been an intregal part of the Civil Defense network from the get go. Archer was purchased with money earmarked for Archer, not flir or  anything else, money was obtained as a supplemental to CAP/USAF funding.

And should not have been. It's the wrong tool for the job. Now we're talking about other jobs it does work for so we can justify.

Now the truth, it will need some modification and upgrades, but it has some real potential for many Homeland security missions and Yes environmental missions. You see, the USAF, US Navy have always flown environmental Mapping missions, however the customers ( other federal & State agencies) cannot afford the cost ($4,000+), I know because I have paid for U2 , C130 , and P3 Imaging data.

Absolutely. They have on board systems designed for their primary purposes & work great for those missions. It happens those systems can be used in a secondary less effective way, which is also effective for training as it's using the same gear in the same way on a dif target.

That's backwards with ARCHER. It's not highly effective for SaR/DR, and secondarily useful for these side pickup missions. It's geared toward those outside missions. The whole point of taking those missions in the first place was to work out SaR/DR assets, not just to do something. Now we're taking those hours off those assets.

but lets be real, the biggest problem and that is a BIG problem is CAP aircrews will not respond to mission, let me repeat, the same guys are the same crews that show up over and over again, Lack of response is a big issue. Finally, try reading the latest information on Hyperspectral imaging, besides ARCHER on line information. This technology has revolutionized mapping and surveillance. The system has been paid for, Northcom, and 1st Air Force have asked for us to make the system operational even if it takes extra money from the USAF.

Mapping & surveillance aren't CAP missions. I might have trouble finding it again, but I saw an article a couple months ago from 1AF/CC saying they've determined hyperspectral has zero usefulness to their HLD mission. I would have to agree with that. The kind of targets you need to ID in HLS missions are undetermined. You can't program a specific color or shape into a system when you don't know what you're looking for. As far as just taking airborne photography... that's a whole lot of system to take some pictures, and again it's not highly effective for the kinds of pictures we need to take. I don't need high precision down looking photo map BS. I need real time feedback on damage so customers can deploy resources. Then I need a more systematic survey but we're still talking wide-lens, not an Archer track.

I will agree with you on the flight crew aspect though. That's been a consistent problem in all aspects of CAP ES, as well as unit ops. It's an institutional challenge our org faces & needs to deal with on a larger scale.

The biggest problem is ignorance and (I can see better with the Mark 5 eyeball) attitude. I agree FLIR has uses, but  Archer was not designed or intended for that use. As for understanding the technology and computer program, go on line to ESRI in riverside Ca., take a few classes in Geographical Information Science. it is very interesting and useful.

Well I absolutely think mark V eyeball is just slightly better than a waste of time. I also agree ARCHER has different intended uses than FLIR, however, I feel the uses of FLIR are within our spectrum of primary mission set, where ARCHER is outside that. The system is fine, just not necessarily the best thing for us. I'm not a GIS specialist, though I know several of them quite well. I don't claim to be a SME on hyperspectral, I do know a bit about FLIR, but I'm not overly biased to it. What I'm saying is eyeballs are no longer an acceptable primary search sensor. Looking out the window is fine for a backup, but we really need something more. I think FLIR fits that bill pretty well. The other aspect of it is I can put FLIR on 3/4ths of our total fleet for less than we spent on a handful of ARCHER systems. That wide deployment makes it infinitely more useful, regardless of how good or bad the two systems are head to head.

I'm not actually saying we should get rid of ARCHER. I think it's been WAY over hyped, and not really worth all the trouble. I would not have chosen to acquire it, but we got it now. I'm not really saying we need to just give it away. We need to go ahead an use it as you've described for the most part. However, I would limit further investment & make future acquisition decisions based on techs best suited to our primary purposes & that can be fielded in a large percentage of our force over time.

[Hoser]

Yes ARCHER has been hyped, no it is not that useful for SAR, it is useful for environmental work and it is useful for CD. My find with it was crucial to the NTSB investigation so one can't dismiss it. Doesn't the tag line say "Missions for America?" It doesn't say "Missions for America only if we think they are cool and glamorous." I think helping determine if say, toxic waste from lead mine tailings might be getting into the groundwater, is an important thing to do. One of the big concerns on the Coffeyville KS mission (featured in the Volunteer) was the potential for Tulsa OK's main water source being contaminated with oil. I'd say that is an important job, and has a critical HLS application. Suppose instead of oil it was methylisocyanate? I'd say that is important. CAP folks need to think outside the box concerning ARCHER and CAP in general. That blasted box has held CAP and many other organizations back. I Could be wrong

Hoser

[Hoser]

The other thing about ARCHER, the detection parameters are a function of software more so that hardware, so what we (CAP) can see with it is a totally differnt critter than what people with the proper software can see from the same dataset. You can't tell me that some remote sensing geek working for some spook agency hasn't said "if they can find this with ARCHER, then we can find what we really want to find with it."

[cnitas]

Anyone missing their tinfoil hat?

[jimmydeanno]

Does anyone know if it's been utilized in the CD arena yet?  I'm not too familiar with how it actually works, but it seems to me that one could "program" the hyperspectral frequency of certain plants...

[cnitas]

Does anyone know if it's been utilized in the CD arena yet?  I'm not too familiar with how it actually works, but it seems to me that one could "program" the hyperspectral frequency of certain plants...

Without having actually been through the training, that is what jumped out at me from the online test as its 'real' use.

[DNall]

Yes ARCHER has been hyped, no it is not that useful for SAR, it is useful for environmental work and it is useful for CD. My find with it was crucial to the NTSB investigation so one can't dismiss it. Doesn't the tag line say "Missions for America?" It doesn't say "Missions for America only if we think they are cool and glamorous." I think helping determine if say, toxic waste from lead mine tailings might be getting into the groundwater, is an important thing to do. One of the big concerns on the Coffeyville KS mission (featured in the Volunteer) was the potential for Tulsa OK's main water source being contaminated with oil. I'd say that is an important job, and has a critical HLS application. Suppose instead of oil it was methylisocyanate? I'd say that is important. CAP folks need to think outside the box concerning ARCHER and CAP in general. That blasted box has held CAP and many other organizations back. I Could be wrong

Delivering the mail is a Mission for America too. Missions for America is a slogan, not a lane. Army of one, army strong, cross into the blue, aim high, whatever... none of that means they'll do anything for anyone as long as it doesn't conflict with their marketing. In the military you learn about staying in your lane. You have a segment of a mission & you don't cross the lines into other people's segments, cause they screws everything up, costs tons of money, and in war gets people killed.

I don't dispute that ARCHER has some uses that can be beneficial to community, state, and nation, but that doesn't mean they are a CAP mission, at least not a primary mission for which we should be focusing budget & technological development.

It has nothing to do with sexy mission versus not. It has to do with sticking to your own mission, and using your resources to do that more effectively. IF those tools happen by chance to also be effective for other things then it's okay within some strict limits to help out, but not at the cost of the primary mission set. I really think CAP lost sight of that trying to chase more hours/missions.

[KyCAP]

If it had been used in CD we could not discuss it here in this unsecured area.

[DNall]

It's been used, and is relatively effective for that purpose. How effective, how used, and current ops profile is what we won't be talking about.

The point though is CD isn't our job. It's something we do on the side because the resources & techniques we already have for our primary missions are also decently suited to that secondary mission. That's fine. Specializing resources into those secondary fields to the extent that they are not very effective for the primary purpose, or that acquisition takes away from what we need to be doing for the primary missions is a bad thing.

We need to be working on how to locate downed aircraft is the very shortest time possible, how to quickly survey damage over wide areas so the federal govt can determine how to direct resources, how to further aide the AF is completion of it's primary domestic missions (mostly HLS).

[RiverAux]

Well, I think we can say that CD is one of our missions.  After all we do have a regulation specifically focused on carrying out CD missions, have special training and qualifications to perform it, etc.   Its not like its some off the wall request that only comes in every once in a while. 

[KyCAP]

I was being more tongue in cheek.   You all must have the secret decoder ring.

[wingnut]

So let me understand

CAP is an organization that picks and chooses their assignments, SLOW scan, SDIS, Photo Recon, Homeland Security, Radiation surveillance, fire watch, boats in distress, Border Patrol, flying important cargo, WADS, Towing Targets, Submarine Bombing, convoy patrol, UAV Chase planes, Space Shuttle Landing Support etc.

Northcom (1st AF)  requested (Archer), U.S. Forrest Service, National Park Service, and those of which we may not speak (Skully and Mulder) have all requested Archer be made fully operational.

Archer is here, it will be used, it will be modified, improved, utilized, fielded, and I will be one of the guys who does it.


I mean if the decline of General Aviation continues (FAA sees a 12% drop per year), some wings will have to make up reasons why the Air Force should keep a glass cockpit 182 funded.

[Short Field]

IMHO, based on what I saw on the Fossett search, our biggest problem with Archer was a shortage of operators to do EXTENSIVE processing once the data is on the ground. 

HSI can do magic but it is time intensive and requires well-trained operators.  The mission is just starting when the aircraft lands.

[DNall]

Again, I'm not advocating we dump ARCHER & move on, just that it wasn't the most effective thing we could have done primarily because: 1) it doesn't best suit our primary mission set; and, 2) there are far too few units to effectively deploy it - that relates to trans time to the mission & qualified personnel based on distribution.

Now that we have ARCHER, of course we should continue to use it. It's not like we can return the thing & get our money back. However, it should be a lesson for future investment decisions. I think you can see how a 25k FLIR package in 350 planes is a better use of out time & money.

[SarWeenie]

Archer is a complete joke....unless you have the excact "spectral signature" of your target you will never find anything...plus it takes 4+ hours to fly a QUARTER grid....

So if its in 'anomaly' mode you will get a hit from every piece on metal, trash, and crap in the area...now leagally you have to send a ground team to chek it out.

The AF used HSI in the 70's....theres a reason there not using it any more... its garbage...unless we are evaluating crops and agriculture surveys its crap..

Drew alexa used it to get his 15 min of fame on CNN and made a lot of money off it...and thats all it was good for..  CAP is wasting money and time keeping it operational.  The AF released a report  a while back and found ARCHER to be useless