I am doing a little trade study on systems used for photography during SAR, CD etc...
I want REAL opinions on ARCHER and SDIS. Tell me why it works and why it does not work. What are the strengths and weaknesses.
Also, what would YOU look for in a digital imaging systems.
Ease of use and accessibility.
ARCHER meets neither of these.
SDIS is fine, but unnecessary in most cases. Few missions we fly need real-time imaging.
The majority require clear, appropriate images, which can be presented to a customer on CD or sent via email at an FBO in the mission area.
The SDIS concept is good but the execution isn't. If time is short and customers anxious a direct feed from the aircraft is fantastic. It allows the receiving customer to redirect aircraft if the images aren't what they wanted. The problem is with the inaccessible satellite (busy signals etc.)and difficult usability of the computer tablet in turbulence.
Archer requires very expensive aircraft and crew training that frequently isn't funded. With few exceptions it hasn't lived up to the advertised capability.
Both need to be scrapped and re-thought. Hyperspectral imaging has not proven anywhere near as useful for any of its proposed missions. SDIS is too dependent on operator skill and a crappy satellite vendor.
What customers want and expect is live video, just like a Predator UAV delivers.
If CAP has any hope of keeping such missions alive, we need to acquire something capable of real-time imagery delivery. The necessary technology is widely available, virtually every news helicopter in the country has a pod-mounted camera, and in my travels around the country, I've seen such pods adapted for use on Cessnas.
(http://www.icm4hd.com/images/airplane-pic.jpg)
Shoot, here's the exact system, employed for the exact purpose we need:
http://mae.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&Subsection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=222001
Looking at the costs do you think that would effect the effective distribution? how many ARCHERS are out there? Would an inexpensive system that can be placed on all CAP planes be more effective or even a portable system?
The reality is that with off the shelf parts and an FCC waiver for cel phone use we could build a robust system for near-time and real-time imaging for close to nothing.
I have the needed gear in my bag right now.
Agree'd. I already have the parts as well to use as a COTS system. it is so easy!
If you only knew what was discussed in the ARCHER Summit in March 08. I think that would squelch all you so-called ARCHER experts ooops I mean naysyers
Well, whose fault is it for not dispersing that information out to all us uninformed folks? You have to sell programs to your members, not just outside folks.
...and remember kids, knowledge is power!
"If you only knew what was discussed..."
If a tool is not in its proper place it does not exist. Why would you have a 'summit' yet not let others know what the 'capabilities' truly are?
there is a third option. When I was active in CAP Iowa had a very active "Slow scan"video system. This system allowed for reel time imagery with out the internet infrastructure.
The slowscan concept is still feasible, but the quality was not great the last time I used it (maybe 7 years ago) and wouldn't be at all acceptable today. However, I don't know if that was due to the video camera we were using (not top of the line then) or how much information could be transmitted over the radio. As I recall it took about 2 minutes to transmit the junky photos and it would probably be 2-3 times that to transmit a photo of acceptable quality today. The other issue was that you would often have to rise to 5-6 thousand feet to transmit, taking additional time. At that point it becomes almost quicker to just go back to base and download the photos.
You'd have better luck transmitting photos via packet radio, which would also use existing equipment.
However why anyone would pursue sending low-res photos over a radio just to get poor near-time photos when you can wait ten minutes, land and get 12megapixel full-res images from the internet would be beyond me.
Eclipse you are correct. That's why broadband WiFi would be the best option for something on the cheap and using COTS items.
It is also easily interceptable, with a TNC, radio, an old TV you've got the picture.
Interception is not necessarily a favorable trait to a lot of out customers, especially for things like downed A/C's and the like.
True... So now you have to add some form of encryption. My thought is using FTP to transmit images so add in a step to automatically ZIP and encrypt say like 256 AES, and then also use a secure FTPS.
He's referring to the slow scan, not broadband.
There are ways to intercept those, too, but it requires more than the average "scanner-guy" can do
quickly enough to be useful.
But nothing wrong with encryption and its plenty easy to implement.
All ARCHER operators have signed a non disclosure agreement, which includes non ARCHER CAP members, although not specifically addressed in the agreement it is an understood thing. I will err on the side of keeping out of hot water with the powers that be. Opsec remember? Or does that not apply when ARCHER is involved?????????
Thats fine, but then don't complain when the rest of us evaluate the program based on what we have seen ourselves or read about the program. You're not going to change anybody's mind by going all secret squirrel and claiming there is a big old nut buried somewhere out in the forest, but that you're not allowed to tell us about how good it tastes.
Quote from: Hoser on August 09, 2008, 04:18:32 PM
All ARCHER operators have signed a non disclosure agreement, which includes non ARCHER CAP members, although not specifically addressed in the agreement it is an understood thing. I will err on the side of keeping out of hot water with the powers that be. Opsec remember? Or does that not apply when ARCHER is involved?????????
Sadly, I find government nondisclosure agreements are all-too-often wonderfully effective at squelching facts about a failed project or program as well.
Hide a pork-barrel debacle behind a facade of "homeland security" zealotry, overreaction, and hyperbole attributed to the cliched "post 9-11 world." Kinda like the TSA.
As a retired CAP-IC and NHQ volunteer staff member, it's my humble opinion that ARCHER was/is an absurdly expensive "white elephant" ... a high-dollar invention in search of a necessity.
It will never be worth its weight in paperwork (e.g. nondisclosure agreements, etc.) alone.
Losses should be cut along with ARCHER ... or some real disclosure of ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE, worth to someone other than it's contractor and vendor.
For those who are curious, AES-256 is NSA-approved, up to Top Secret, IIRC. Definitely as high or higher then everything CAP does.
Quote from: MikeD on August 11, 2008, 12:41:04 AM
For those who are curious, AES-256 is NSA-approved, up to Top Secret, IIRC. Definitely as high or higher then everything CAP does.
Who or what is AES-256 ?
An encryption standard, relatively easily implemented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard
PK Zip has it as an option, very easy for sure. there are some other options as well that are secure for our needs of image transmission. Of course I would build in automatic strong password on both ends. You have the PW for the day, punch it in and the software does the rest on both ends.
I am putting together a presentation to see if I can get some funding from my company. it was recomended by one of the managers who works in the RF section of the plant.
If I don't get funding they might point me into the right place.
I have given up blogging here for several reason, one is there seems to be a lot of crying here and not a lot of "productive talk/
First: I have take over 20 SDIS images over the last three years, I have had about a 80% successful transmission rate. For general info, my squadron supports the space shuttle landings at Edwards and we have used SDIS for the Shuttle Commander to help him on the upcoming landing. While the other customers we shall not speak of. I run into Crew who I helped train 2 years ago and that was the last time they tried to use SDIS ????
Second: Every Archer system had at least 10 operators receiving training at CAP expense most of these "Volunteers" have not volunteered to fly an Archer mission in years.People in CAP often let their mouths be louder than deeds. For the ignorant people : Hyperspectral Imaging is used by all the services including the FBI, and others, you may not know it but the FBI alone spends over $40 million on Aircraft and pilots, guess how many airplanes they have? and it is not even 1/3 the size of CAP.
The brutal truth is CAP cannot support most of what people here spend their time complaining about. Do we need 500 airplane? NO! do we have enough pilots? no! do we have a large number of people who only want to wear a uniform, be 100 pounds over weight and expect an active duty E5 to salute them? well I will leave that up to you. We use to have standards, much higher than we do now, I honestly think it was a mistake to get Congress to buy airplanes for us because it has undermined the basic fundamental core system that made us great; Pilots using there own airplanes and a fleet of thousands.
Can we say that CAP has started to look like many of those "Pork Barrel" programs that make Congress so famous for. Take a look at your state, count the number people that Do! and I mean those who go out on UDF, Fly CD, SAR, Archer, SDIS, Communications, IC etc, I bet you will find about 100 in each state that do all the work while the other 500 watch, but they do complain. If the planes are not used they should be turned over to the USAF, they need them too.
I understand that some folks at NHQ have had FLIR on the wish-list for quite some time. . . .
Actually, I think Archer is a darned powerful capability, but it isn't being used to the fullest technical capability, and operators with the in-depth experiance (beyond an online class and a few hastened training sorties) are few and far between. Good luck getting hands-on training for basic use, less time to develop advnced skills.
I would love to put that thing to some good use, but if our wing is blessed with a visit from one, only a couple of people get to fly a sortie. It becomes more of a dog and pony show than real training.
The low speed and connection stability limits SDIS to pretty much the same thing. It's pretty much impossible to transmit images with sufficient size to be of use. I've yet to get a 300K jpg transmitted in the years of sarex attempts. Ditto on the already heavy crew saturation.
But that's just my thoughts....
Quote from: Mustang on August 07, 2008, 10:44:18 PM
Both need to be scrapped and re-thought. Hyperspectral imaging has not proven anywhere near as useful for any of its proposed missions. SDIS is too dependent on operator skill and a crappy satellite vendor.
What customers want and expect is live video, just like a Predator UAV delivers.
If CAP has any hope of keeping such missions alive, we need to acquire something capable of real-time imagery delivery. The necessary technology is widely available, virtually every news helicopter in the country has a pod-mounted camera, and in my travels around the country, I've seen such pods adapted for use on Cessnas.
I landed at Ithaca NY airport (between sorties) Saturday and there were some corporate planes and helo's there. Some of the NASCAR drivers at the Glen flew in. There was also a FLIR, their too. Talked to the pilot and he was hired to orbit WGI and get shots from above during the race.
Quote from: Mustang on August 07, 2008, 10:44:18 PM
The necessary technology is widely available, virtually every news helicopter in the country has a pod-mounted camera,
The technology used by TV news helicopters is very expensive, into the multiple tens of thousands of dollars. It's not a matter of just sticking a camera pod on the aircraft and taking off.
Ok let's change the question just a little bit.
What would YOU be looking for in a photographic system? now remember that budget is important. Knowing that SDIS has a $17.5+ k you want to come under that so more squadrons can afford it.
What would YOU do?
High-res, non-SLR, digital camera with a 10x+ optical zoom, and a couple of big memory cards.
Throw in a low-mid range notebook with a broadband card in it and we've probably spent about $1500. Use a squadron notebook and its under $1000.
^
I'd go to ASPRS ..... American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and alot of the aerial photo operators out there and get a TRUE feeling of what is needed and what is cheaper.. See what their take is on ARCHER. Maybe some of the ASPRS folks are in on it.. AND maybe they are not......
Surely some of your super secret squirrel opearators at NSA CIA and the like are members of this already fine organization and may be able to help CAP out seeing how this forum is weighing in on the subject.
I'm all for adding features if the cost isn't too high, but at the end of the day we're talking about taking photos of a (generally) fixed object from between 500 & 1500 feet, from a (relatively) slow moving aircraft, and those objects are usually at least the size of a person, and more so the size of an automobile or building.
My old Casio 3Megapixel, 3x zoom still takes great pics under those circumstances, which are the majority of our photo missions.
(My current "good" camera for photo runs is a Nikon 5700, which was hot-poop when I bought it, though I am now sniffing around the Casio digital SLR series.)
Right now I have a KISS system. GPS and Canon DSLR 20D.
I took this of my place of employ on Saturday.
(http://www.richardfairchild.com/images/20080809lmsi-o%20small.jpg)
I have great details in the full image.
Still I would like to take it a few steps beyond, shoot, Geo-Tagging.
Quote from: Hoser on August 09, 2008, 04:18:32 PM
All ARCHER operators have signed a non disclosure agreement, which includes non ARCHER CAP members, although not specifically addressed in the agreement it is an understood thing. I will err on the side of keeping out of hot water with the powers that be. Opsec remember? Or does that not apply when ARCHER is involved?????????
O.K. I'm going to get myself into a little trouble here, but with all the repeater drama about to come down the pike...
Does anyone have a scan of this enigmatic document? I'm not talking about the online "I agree" button that you press at the end of OPSEC. Anyone who thinks this is legally binding enough to hold you accountable to criminal prosecution (And you people who I've heard throw this around know who you are) needs some re-education time with our legal officers. You signed no document legally binding you to such prosecution. The only thing that online button will do is help a wing CC's case for your 2B or suspension if you violate OPSEC rules defined under CAP's membership rules.
Therein lies a critical, and in my opinion legally dangerous, territory. With some rare and few exceptions, the only information that will get you into federal criminal trouble is classified information as defined under DoD 5200. THAT is highly dependent on the situation therein, such as a signed, witnessed, and CAF processed SF312. That legally binds you to conduct and handling of information that you come in contact with, and is binding for life. Joe Civilian coming across a peice of paper on the street that is classified who signed no NDA isn't going to get prosecuted under NORMAL situations.
You, as a CAP member in CAP activities, DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY UNDER CAP or DoD TO PROCESS, POSSESS, HANDLE, OR ESPECIALLY DERIVE/CREATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
OK, so I know exactly what a bunch of you are thinking "But, Desert, I have a clearance in my civilian job". Sorry, the answer is still a resounding NO under NORMAL circumstances. Remember you are a CAP member, not DoD. The acid test within 5200-22 still excludes you. At the most basic level, no one in thier right mind (IMHO) is going to give you access under CAP because of the "need to know" part in addition to JPAS verification. I wouldn't. Nothing personal, but you are a civilian volunteer, not DoD.
This rambling ties into a pet peeve of mine regarding threatment of information regarding FOUO and OPSEC, and what I feel is a rather stretched policy, inherently enigmatic in nature, that ultimately leads to severe misunderstanding of responsibilities and legal penalties.
A good is example is the repeater frequencies. Sorry to be the one to tell you all this, but about 5 minutes after release, they're going to be online. Even if they aren't leaked, I can sit within a mile of ANY CAP tower and have the input and output frequencies within 30 seconds using my $200 PCR-1000.
There is NO legally reasonable method applied to protect that information by the nature of how they are implemented. Simply put - you've broadcasted to the world what they are. You can't put somebody in jail for saying "look, there's a naked person", if there's a naked person standing in public.
My point is, that everyone needs to CHILL with the OPSEC legal urban legend talk before we get into some serious trouble. Making someone sign a statement threatening criminal prosecution for something that is not enforceable, and arguably not legal, is asking for class action lawsuits. You can ask them to sign any statements regarding membership, or things within CAP, that you want. But none of us have authority to play the criminal card. Let me restate that - I DARE you to claim otherwise because it might be a good invitation of some open debate. Maybe someone with good legal background can chime in and we get this all straight.
I'm just getting really, really, tired of rolling my eyes and wasting energy to correct the "spook" talk many of our senior members are throwing around. Usually, when I call them on it, there's a LOT of back track, usually falling down the pit of "those guys", or "they" words. LOL!
Here's your challenge. Let's get some good discussion on it?
Being a civilian auxiliary volunteer evidently does not exclude you from getting security clearances. Actual security clearances have been given to members of the CG Aux who have a need for them based on the sort of work they're doing for the CG. It is very rare by all accounts, but it can happen. So, I suspect that if the AF saw a real need to get a CAP person a clearance, they could probably do so. I just can't think of anything we do that would justify it at this point...
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2008, 12:35:31 AM
Being a civilian auxiliary volunteer evidently does not exclude you from getting security clearances. Actual security clearances have been given to members of the CG Aux who have a need for them based on the sort of work they're doing for the CG. It is very rare by all accounts, but it can happen. So, I suspect that if the AF saw a real need to get a CAP person a clearance, they could probably do so. I just can't think of anything we do that would justify it at this point...
But I would challenge that those are very rare exceptions, maybe 0.5% of our active membership. In those cases, the folks are usually employed by FEMA or DoD to start with.
Don't forget that the cost of a NACI or SSBI/SBI comes from an organization's O&M budget (in many cases), so there's also a fiscal motivation behind the scenes to cover investigations with the "other" employer.
It still doesn't hold water with the average volunteer.
You did see where I said it was rare in the CG Aux?
QuoteIn those cases, the folks are usually employed by FEMA or DoD to start with.
I've never seen nor heard of anything like that. The people that I have heard of that have gotten clearances for CG Aux activities had no such affiliations.
I don't think anyone has said that this is something likely to affect the "average volunteer".
I guess I'm not seeing what your issue is here. If you have a clearance and don't want to use it for CAP related activity, should that opportunity arise, you don't have too. Others may wish to approach it differently. I don't think I have ever heard anyone in CAP or the AF say that this was ever going to be something that would effect any significant number of people, so there isn't any false advertising going on.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2008, 02:34:25 AM
You did see where I said it was rare in the CG Aux?
QuoteIn those cases, the folks are usually employed by FEMA or DoD to start with.
I've never seen nor heard of anything like that. The people that I have heard of that have gotten clearances for CG Aux activities had no such affiliations.
I don't think anyone has said that this is something likely to affect the "average volunteer".
I guess I'm not seeing what your issue is here. If you have a clearance and don't want to use it for CAP related activity, should that opportunity arise, you don't have too. Others may wish to approach it differently. I don't think I have ever heard anyone in CAP or the AF say that this was ever going to be something that would effect any significant number of people, so there isn't any false advertising going on.
There are folks who work for FEMA and various DP agencies who have been funded for clearances up to TS, but most of the time they are public trust or secret.
The grating issue with me is the continued belief that frequencies and activities performed by the average member is covered by criminal statutes with respect to OPSEC. The issue with the frequencies is the most painful to me becuase the numbers are being treated like classified, with a lot of behind the scenes threats.
Some missions are exceptions, but they are rare when compared to the majority (CD, Homeland Defense), and they have non-disclosure under authorities seperate from CAP.
I'm dealing with some major misunderstandings with respect to the repeater changeover, and it's getting to a critical point. I need to provide frequencies, power, and modes to the spectral managers of tower owners. They're not going to sign a peice of paper that threatens criminal prosecution (I have yet to see the paper - no one seems to respond when I ask for one). Additionally, I cannot ask someone to sign something that I feel is legally incorrect and not enforceable. It's ultimately down to a question of what's right vs. what's legal. Anyone remember the unit commander's financial disclosure statement fiasco last year? It's the same concept.
I refused to sign the letter because I could not verify funds were properly tracked by WB at wing. It sounds like a lot of other unit commanders had the same issue, and NHQ took the offending statement out.
This is kind fo the same concept. I'm not going to ask tower owners to sign an SF312. I'll resign before I do that because it's just completely insane. I also can't ask them to sign a statement that threatens criminal prosecution. I'm not a lawyer, for one, and it's not enforceable.
Interesting situation.
1. Parent (USAF) insists we are US Government Entity during AFAM
2. CAP NHQ insists we are just a nonprofit volunteer group performing missions for the USAF, DOD, DHLS, DEA etc. USAF declares we as Volunteers, are covered as government employee's under FICA.
Volunteers sign a make believe Nondisclosure statement for NHQ CAP.
All other Federal Agency's require civilian contractors and military members to undergo a real 'SECURITY CLEARENCE". Costs of clearance absorbed by contractor as part of doing business with US Government (really included in contract costs)
CAP HQ insists we are a contractor to USAF. (as we are according to USAF procurement.
Conclusion: CAP & CAP-USAF saves big money by not getting background security clearances. Most of costs for personnel (Training, pay, housing, food) is absorbed by members who are Volunteers.
I can say this 90% of what we do does not require a clearance, but 10% of what we do is stuff I in the past had a clearance for (Active duty and as a contractor). I see this as a failure in the system, this will bite us in the butt someday.
Quote from: wingnut55 on August 20, 2008, 07:44:08 PM
Interesting situation.
I can say this 90% of what we do does not require a clearance, but 10% of what we do is stuff I in the past had a clearance for (Active duty and as a contractor). I see this as a failure in the system, this will bite us in the butt someday.
All our "customers" understand our status and systems before they ask us to perform for them. Nothing we do is considered "classified" however, some of what we do is "confidential" or "sensitive". Members who perform such missions are screened before they are allowed to participate and sign a "statement of understanding". CAP will never start prosecution proceedings against a member who violates this however, the customer may. I think, members who perform such missions take them seriously and wouldn't violate their agreements.
Signing off on OPSEC training is a bit different. Your signature is assurance of understanding the issue. No one will ever go to jail if they give out information they get in Eservices or give out a CAP Freq. However, they may be disqualified from future participation in missions until retrained or disciplined internally. Your signature on OPSEC, IMHO, is a validation of a trust given to you as a member of CAP. Violating that trust is an integrity issue, an ethics issue and, more importantly a character issue.
Quote from: FW on August 20, 2008, 08:55:55 PM
Quote from: wingnut55 on August 20, 2008, 07:44:08 PM
Interesting situation.
All our "customers" understand our status and systems before they ask us to perform for them. Nothing we do is considered "classified" however, some of what we do is "confidential" or "sensitive". Members who perform such missions are screened before they are allowed to participate and sign a "statement of understanding". CAP will never start prosecution proceedings against a member who violates this however, the customer may. I think, members who perform such missions take them seriously and wouldn't violate their agreements.
Signing off on OPSEC training is a bit different. Your signature is assurance of understanding the issue. No one will ever go to jail if they give out information they get in Eservices or give out a CAP Freq. However, they may be disqualified from future participation in missions until retrained or disciplined internally. Your signature on OPSEC, IMHO, is a validation of a trust given to you as a member of CAP. Violating that trust is an integrity issue, an ethics issue and, more importantly a character issue.
Absolutely accurate words on the OPSEC category, FW. Sadly, many members don't understand that completely, and lacking clear and concise rules with respect to frequencies and how we're to handle FOUO information, the bad information propagates.
My point on the frequencies is a plea to the people in charge (and ourselves) to come back to a common sense reality. Part of that reality includes both an accurate understanding of OPSEC's implementation (as you stated extremely well) - but more importantly reasonable, efficient, controls.
You cannot treat the frequency value of a 100 watt signal as "spooky classified". The nanosecond it transmits - the cat is effectively out of the bag, and all the policy letters we've produced are irrelevent. NHQ, IMHO, is wasting valuable time we don't have to apply rules that will be OBE 5 minutes after the first repeaters are installed. The constrictions being placed are over-reaching, and complicating an already daunting task. We're also taking a significant hit with respect to reputation among the military technical community.