Robots

[Kirkhill]

My day starts with RealClearDefense | Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls (among other things)

Today's collection of articles included some that stood out for me.

The first one was:

Ransomware attacks show we’re getting clobbered on cybersecurity

Attacks on infrastructure by criminals who aren’t deterred by diplomatic niceties changes the game.

thehill.com

I attach a couple of additional articles that might be helpful.

What is the IoT? Everything you need to know about the Internet of Things right now

Updated: The Internet of Things explained. What the IoT is, and where it's going next.

www.zdnet.com

What is SCADA? Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SCADA is a control system comprised of software and hardware elements that is used for efficiently managing and monitoring industrial processes.

www.inductiveautomation.com

I commissioned my first "robot" dairy back in 1982. It was a semi-automatic hybrid that combined a Programmable Logic Controller with Electro-Mechanical "Human Machine Interfaces". The PLC, or computer, was isolated from the outside world and connected within the plant by internal 24vdc wiring and Co-Ax cables. Since then I have had a love-hate relationship with the technology. While I appreciate it when it does the things I expect it to do I loathe it when unknown unknowns rear up and I absolutely detest it when intermittents start appearing. And they increase with age.

I just finished helping some youngsters commission a new system in a plant that I helped commission back in 1985. The same PLCs and E-M HMIs were still in use 36 years later. And keeping the factory Techs busy.

I have observed the replacement of co-ax with fibre-optics and wireless comms systems, the rise of Distributed Control Systems and SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), Intelligent Motors and Intelligent Valves and, currently the Internet of Things.

And I have been no fan of wireless comms or the Internet of Things. Precisely because I believe they are too hackable. And, frankly, the components are sufficiently byzantine as to be unreliable and hard to maintain.

So, am I surprised about Pipeline and Burger disruptions? Not as much as I would like to be. I'm more surprised by the audacity than the technology.

In the same suggested reading list were these articles:

Second Ghost Fleet Overlord USV finishes trip to Pacific - UPI.com

The U.S. Department of Defense said Monday that the Ghost Fleet Overlord program's second unmanned surface vessel recently completed its trip to the Pacific.

www.upi.com

Drone Refuels Manned Aircraft For First Time: Navy - Breaking Defense

The Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray prototype successfully refueled a Navy Super Hornet fighter in mid-air during a Friday test.

breakingdefense.com

US Air Force completes tests of swarming munitions, but will they ever see battle?

The U.S. Air Force has wrapped up the first phase of its Golden Horde demonstration effort, putting the service one step closer to developing swarming smart weapons that behave semi-autonomously and use algorithms to seek high-priority targets.

www.defensenews.com

Navy Taps One-Star To Drive LCS Program Improvements - USNI News

The Navy has installed a one-star admiral to oversee a task force focused on refining the employment, maintenance and reliability of the Littoral Combat Ship program, the service announced today. Rear Adm. Robert Nowakowski, the deputy commander of Navy Recruiting Command and Naval Education and...

news.usni.org

The last article is included specifically because of this

Kitchener said the study he led fed into the new task force focus, which has four lines of effort, told reporters today. The task force seeks to incorporate all of the groups working on LCS-related work – including the director of the surface warfare division on the chief of naval operations’ staff (OPNAV N96), the director of expeditionary warfare (OPNAV N95), and the Program Executive Office for Unmanned and Small Combatants – and streamline the effort.

“Between the deployments and then some of the analysis we did during the study, we came up with a couple of things to go look at. And that was basically, A) How do we make them more reliable? B) How do we sustain them forward into the future, as we looked at sort of some expeditionary maintenance concepts? [C)] We looked at the lethality – can we make them more lethal? And then finally, [D] we looked at the force generation piece, which was really, ‘okay how do we train them and then how do we properly man them and how do we move them forward?’” Kitchener said of the effort.

The LCS has its own thread. What is interesting is that the LCS is lumped together with the Ghost Fleet USV programme, the Sea Hunter USV programme and the Marines Light Amphibious Vessel. By implication these would have connections with the Marines Littoral Regiments and their NEMESIS/ROGUE programmes as well as their Long Range Precision Strike programmes.

The technology exists to make such things possible. At time of commissioning. But they are vulnerable to wear and tear, early obsolescence and - most critically - hacking.


Based on my 40 odd years in related fields my comments are these.

You can't stop technology. These things will happen.
You will have to deal with the weaknesses. Just like we had to manage fouling gas cylinders on FNs.

In terms of managing weaknesses my expectations are

We will have fewer operators.

You must retain the man-in-the-loop as a circuit-breaker, a cut-out, with the ability to isolate his command/plant from all outside interference and be able to direct the operations personally.

You need to expect breakdowns of increasing frequency and complexity. Especially among mechanical systems. Control hardware breaks on Day 1. Mechanical hardware does fine on Day 1 and gets worse from there. Control wiring does not like vibration. Software needs constant modification as unknown unknown appears.

You will need more maintainers and/or need to replace the equipment more frequently.

In the LCS case this has meant that the fleet now needs a separate fleet of MRTs to accompany the vessels with their small crews of operators.

Personally I think that is a better idea.



I am not a fan of industrial age manning which puts an entire gaggle of people on the firing line. Personally I would as soon have as few people as possible on the firing line, but not zero, with the maintenance and support staff a bound or two to the rear and ready to rapidly RV with the firing (and sensing) elements.

That is why I argue for ships with crews of 6 and tanks and guns with crews of 1. The crew supplies the critical control cut-out. The small size means that a small amount of armour can be focused of encapsulating the crew and permitting them to survive the destruction of their weapon system and escape. It also means less wear and tear and less cost.

 

[Kirkhill]

Manual - 4 to 7 operators on the firing line and exposed

Semi-Automatic (loaders on board) - 4-5 operators on the firing line but under armour

Automatic - 2 operators on the firing line

Automatic - 2 operators on the firing line and under cover.


The keys to success,

Low cost
Replaceable
Easily maintained
Dedicated Operators few
Strong maintenance team
Operators trained in troubleshooting
Artificial Intelligence controlled by local, onboard, commander.

Commander is always required to relay instructions and observations to and from the system. Never bypassed. Maintain a human chain of command.

And missiles have fewer moving parts than guns - easier to maintain and cheaper to replace.

 

[blacktriangle]

I commissioned my first "robot" dairy back in 1982. It was a semi-automatic hybrid that combined a Programmable Logic Controller with Electro-Mechanical "Human Machine Interfaces". The PLC, or computer, was isolated from the outside world and connected within the plant by internal 24vdc wiring and Co-Ax cables. Since then I have had a love-hate relationship with the technology. While I appreciate it when it does the things I expect it to do I loathe it when unknown unknowns rear up and I absolutely detest it when intermittents start appearing. And they increase with age.

I just finished helping some youngsters commission a new system in a plant that I helped commission back in 1985. The same PLCs and E-M HMIs were still in use 36 years later. And keeping the factory Techs busy.

I have observed the replacement of co-ax with fibre-optics and wireless comms systems, the rise of Distributed Control Systems and SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), Intelligent Motors and Intelligent Valves and, currently the Internet of Things.

And I have been no fan of wireless comms or the Internet of Things. Precisely because I believe they are too hackable. And, frankly, the components are sufficiently byzantine as to be unreliable and hard to maintain.

So, am I surprised about Pipeline and Burger disruptions? Not as much as I would like to be. I'm more surprised by the audacity than the technology.

Ever since Stuxnet, I've found the world of industrial automation fascinating. I expect there to be no shortage of attacks on OT/cyber-physical systems in the coming years. And the lessons learned in crime will prove invaluable in war.

 

[Kirkhill]

You can't stop technology. These things will happen.

You will have to deal with the weaknesses. Just like we had to manage fouling gas cylinders on FNs.

In terms of managing weaknesses my expectations are

We will have fewer operators.

You must retain the man-in-the-loop as a circuit-breaker, a cut-out, with the ability to isolate his command/plant from all outside interference and be able to direct the operations personally.

You need to expect breakdowns of increasing frequency and complexity. Especially among mechanical systems. Control hardware breaks on Day 1. Mechanical hardware does fine on Day 1 and gets worse from there. Control wiring does not like vibration. Software needs constant modification as unknown unknown appears.

You will need more maintainers and/or need to replace the equipment more frequently.

In the LCS case this has meant that the fleet now needs a separate fleet of MRTs to accompany the vessels with their small crews of operators.

Personally I think that is a better idea.



I am not a fan of industrial age manning which puts an entire gaggle of people on the firing line. Personally I would as soon have as few people as possible on the firing line, but not zero, with the maintenance and support staff a bound or two to the rear and ready to rapidly RV with the firing (and sensing) elements.

That is why I argue for ships with crews of 6 and tanks and guns with crews of 1. The crew supplies the critical control cut-out. The small size means that a small amount of armour can be focused of encapsulating the crew and permitting them to survive the destruction of their weapon system and escape. It also means less wear and tear and less cost.

In keeping with this thinking I'm going to reapproach the manning of the CSCs.

In the past I have argued for crew minimization. The counter to that has been the need for maintainers. The counter to the counter is that maintainers are hard to come by, hard to train, hard to keep and expensive - all of which makes it a losing proposition, IMO, to maintain a gaggle of maintainers in the line of fire.

But they will always be required, and close at hand.

Which brings me to this.

I have proposed making a Flotilla of 3 CSCs an integral part of a Canadian Expeditionary Force. 3 Commanders/Lt Cols in charge of the 3 CSCs = 1 Brigade Equivalent. On shore they would be supported by the Brigade Maintenance Area. The Navy is getting a pair of Joint Support Ships.

What happens if a Flotilla consisted of 2x JSS and 3x CSC - with the CSCs employing Artificial Intelligence to facilitate optional/minimal manning?

The JSS, built to MilSpec standards and equipped with their own point defence systems would be home for 2nd line maintenance and, perhaps, 2 out of 3 of the CSC divisions.

The JSS, on the high seas, or a nearby friendly port, could be the hotel for support and for atts.

The CSCs would operate on a reduced crew, perhaps even as low as 20-50 on a high risk strike mission or other operation in close proximity to risk.

Replacement Divisions and 1st and 2nd Line Maintenance would be a tactical bound or two behind. JSS as mothership for a CSC flotilla.

 

[Kirkhill]

BMT on Autonomous systems. They're working towards The Lean Crew. I think the same concepts will apply to ground fighting vehicles as well.

BMT autonomous warships - Global Defence Technology | Issue 129 | November 2021

BMT Group aims to bridge the gap to autonomy to enable safer, more secure operations with lean-crewed warships

defence.nridigital.com

Research and development lead at BMT Jake Rigby explains: “We want to keep humans doing what they’re really good at and let computers do what they are better at doing and focus on how we can pair these elements.”

But removing crew members from vessels entirely may not be an option just yet.

“We don’t see that [complete automation] happening in the near future. There is also the understanding of the ethical aspects of warships operating autonomously, whether that’s defending themselves or choosing whether to engage in fights. There is a huge hurdle to overcome in terms of trust of the supervisory systems,” BMT chief engineer Ian Savage says.

BMT is addressing these issues but the process takes time, and the company thinks it is important that systems that enable at least partial automation are integrated. It believes that transitioning towards a highly autonomous, lean crewed concept can provide improved operational capabilities while retaining asset flexibility by keeping a limited number of highly skilled personnel on board.

Rigby explains: “If we look at hypersonic missiles or other new threats, a computer can pick out and track those things better than a human can.”

Removing personnel from the direct line of fire is another important aspect.

“It can improve their quality of life and increase retention rates because they could do some of the roles onshore rather than having to necessarily always be on the vessel,” Rigby adds.

In this future concept, there is no regular bridge on the vessel. BMT believes the navigation function can be performed using electro-optical sensors from a virtual steering position in a combined operations room and bridge deeper inside the ship.

This concept reduces the number of personnel on board, keeps them safer and frees up topside real-estate for weapons, communication equipment and sensors. Less personnel translate into lower operational costs and longer endurance.

So, if I'm reading this right - by 2040 - most of a ship's crew will stand watch from a shore station while a skeleton staff rotates through sea duty and that staff will be buried deep in a bunker in the hull watching the same pictures the shore station is seeing. Hotel spaces and superstructure will be radically reconfigured and (I'm guessing) may look more like a submarine than a conventional surface ship.

And we will be launching CSC number 5 or so with 10 more 2020 ships to follow.

 

[Spencer100]

Why do I have feeling in a conflict in the futurewith say China....they will flip a switch and our ship, tank or plane just turns off....alla Battlestar Glactica and Cylons. And just what is the true extent of their cyber spying?

 

[dimsum]

‘Part of the kill chain’: how can we control weaponised robots?

From armed robot dogs to target-seeking drones, the use of artificial intelligence in warfare presents ethical dilemmas that urgently need addressing

www.theguardian.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

How can we defeat military robots?

Make sure you keep the box it came in

 

[dimsum]

How can we defeat military robots?

Make sure you keep the box it came in

I like the Kotaku article better

Real Soldiers Use Metal Gear Solid Tactic To Defeat Military Robot

I think Solid Snake and Metal Gear Solid creator Hideo Kojima would approve of this tactic

kotaku.com

Cardboard boxes are very useful. You can use them to move stuff, create large elaborate forts out of them, and uh, probably other things too. But did you know that you can use a cardboard box to hide from a highly advanced military robot? It’s true, even if it sounds like something straight out of a video game.


Metal Gear is a long-running video game franchise created by Hideo Kojima and published by Konami that mixes fantastical and bizarre elements with grounded soldiers and war. It also has a lot of cutscenes. Anyway, one great example of the series mixing weird shit with war is the ability for the player in most games in the franchise to hide from enemies using a cardboard box. And hey, it turns out that tactic actually works in real life against AI-powered robots, which, yes, sounds like a Metal Gear Solid thing but is actually something that exists in our real-life world.

 

[FJAG]

‘Part of the kill chain’: how can we control weaponised robots?

From armed robot dogs to target-seeking drones, the use of artificial intelligence in warfare presents ethical dilemmas that urgently need addressing

www.theguardian.com

Asimov's Three Laws!

 

[Kirkhill]

Air Force, Army, MUM-T, Swarms, UAVs, UGVs, AUKUS, 5-Eyes.....
This is what we're missing.

"This trial demonstrates the military advantage of AUKUS advanced capabilities, as we work in coalition to identify, track and counter potential adversaries from a greater distance and with greater speed," British Lt. Gen. Rob Magowan, U.K. Deputy Chief of Defence Staff for Military Capability, said in a statement.

Drone Swarms Got Targeting System Updates In Flight In Recent AUKUS Demo

The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia recently tested advanced drone swarm and artificial-intelligence targeting capabilities.

www.thedrive.com

VIKING Multirole UGV Platform - Unmanned Ground Vehicles

As autonomy capabilities improve UGVs are becoming strategically critical for several industry sectors. In the defence sector, UGVs fulfil a range of tasks that might otherwise expose soldiers to danger, or where they can significantly improve efficiency or increase tempo. Tasks include...

www.horiba-mira.com

Modular Autonomous Control Equipment (MACE) - Unmanned Ground Vehicles

MACE delivers unmanned remote, tele-operation or autonomous control to UGVs. The system is comprises a number of discreet modules that provides the control required. Our autonomy uses state of the art vision-based AI algorithms, providing capability such as terrain and object recognition for...

www.horiba-mira.com

Make any vehicle optionally autonomous



Recce

AWE19 VIKING MUM-T Semi-Autonomous Recce UGV with Artificial Intelligence - Unmanned Ground Vehicles

Forward reconnaissance and surveillance represent a significant risk for military personnel even when they are partially protected by armour. The use of an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) such as VIKING, which has the potential for a reduced signature compared to larger manned platforms, could go...

www.horiba-mira.com

RRB

VIKING Agile C3 UGV AWE 20 - Unmanned Ground Vehicles

MIRA UGV has developed VIKING, a multirole Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) platform with Autonomy, Artificial Intelligence, Low Bandwidth Communications Supervision, and Command and Control. It was configured for agile C3 for AWE20 through the inclusion of intelligent mesh communications systems...

www.horiba-mira.com

AND

Ghost Bat and Stingray - MQ-28 and MQ-25

First Image Of MQ-28 Ghost Bat In The United States

Boeing released the first picture of the Australian-born MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone in the United States face-to-face with the MQ-25 Stingray.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Good2Golf]

‘Swarming’ makes things sound less organized.

‘Platooning’ is the latest, more functional concept.

 

[Kirkhill]

An interesting bit of fluff on Anduril and Peter Luckey.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Toys, technology and tactics.

 

[Kirkhill]

Merlin cuts co-pilot from flying C-130J with new AI tool - Airforce Technology

Merlin cuts the co-pilot out of flying the C-130J and KC-135 transporter aircraft with its new autonomy tool, the Merlin Pilot.

www.airforce-technology.com

MUMT (Manned-Un-Manned Teaming) takes another step. Single aviator C-130s.

The crew is replaced by an AI system. The plane becomes autonomous. One human stays on board as a commander. The trend continues from F22s and F35s where the "pilot" does less flying and more fighting. Add in "drones" becoming more intelligent and autonomous, requiring less supervision. Continue through F16s that were converted into target drones now becoming sufficiently intelligent to carry the SECAF as a passenger during a mock fight.

AI-powered F-16 impresses ride-along SECAF in dogfight

Air Force will deploy armed, automated aircraft around 2030, Kendall says.

www.defenseone.com

Optionally Manned Ships

Heavily armed 'optionally crewed' ships to enter service under reshaping of Australia's naval fleet

Six large and "optionally crewed" naval vessels heavily armed with missiles will be added to Australia's surface fleet under a dramatic $11 billion reshaping of the navy that will also see the acquisition of 11 new general-purpose frigates to be partly built overseas.

www.abc.net.au

Unmanned turrets

Rheinmetall's hybrid solution for threat-commensurate, modern mobile air defence - EDR Magazine

04 February 2022 – Laser on board: The Skyranger 30 HEL is a hybrid solution designed to thwart the full

www.edrmagazine.eu

KNDS unveils new Leopard and Leclerc main battle tank concepts - Breaking Defense

“The fire power of the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 is augmented by a guided missile system with which targets beyond line of sight can also be engaged while on the move," said KNDS.

breakingdefense.com

Add in the Archer, the RCH-155 and the missile trucks.

Convert Existing Vehicles into Optionally-Manned Systems

Multi-Platform Appliqué Kit as a system that is easily installed and quickly converts legacy fleets of existing human-driven vehicles into unmanned systems.

www.kratosdefense.com

Multi-Platform Applique Kit (M-PAK)

The Kratos Multi-Platform Appliqué Kit (M-PAK) is the next generation of Ground Vehicle automation.

www.kratosdefense.com

The number of people at risk is being reduced. The number of people on board and the commensurate need for armour plate is being reduced.

The commander can dismount and send the vehicle forwards to its firing position on its own and have it recover to an RV where she can rejoin it and supervise it reload and maintenance.

 

[KevinB]

I for one salute our new robot overlords...

 

[Kirkhill]

I for one salute our new robot overlords...

Screw that. I want a human commander in every cockpit.

 

[armrdsoul77]

Why do I have feeling in a conflict in the futurewith say China....they will flip a switch and our ship, tank or plane just turns off....alla Battlestar Glactica and Cylons. And just what is the true extent of their cyber spying?

The fail switch is built in to anything manufactured in China. Inexpensive/quantity over quality/longevity.

 

[armrdsoul77]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/public-servants-uneasy-as-government-spy-robot-prowls-federal-offices-1.7239711

 

[Kirkhill]

Fan of automation, drones and robots that I am I also recognize their limitations.

Excellent Globe and Mail article arguing the benefits of the Mark 1 Eyeball.

Opinion: Staffed lookout towers aren’t relics from the past – they’re key to fighting today’s wildfires

During my seven years as a lookout, people often asked me why I hadn’t been replaced by cameras or satellites. But staffed towers are the still best method we have for preventing catastrophic wildfires

www.theglobeandmail.com

A red and white cupola perched atop a 100-foot steel fire tower.

Lookouts are mandated to watch over a 40-kilometre radius of land – 1.2 million acres, or around 5,000 square kilometres – and report smokes within five minutes of discovery.

the most essential technology remains analog: the Osborne Fire Finder, virtually indestructible in the face of extreme weather. The device uses a topographical map mounted on a turning disc, allowing lookouts to accurately locate a fire based on distant smoke.

Minutes matter, says Mike Flannigan, a wildfire scientist whose experience spans 40 years. “When a wildfire is small, agencies can put it out,” he says. “Even when things are crazy hot, dry and windy. But that window of time can be really narrow, especially during extreme periods – I’m talking about 20 minutes.”

Putting out fires when they are small is the key to avoiding catastrophic wildfires such as the 2016 inferno that devastated Fort McMurray, Alta. – the costliest disaster in Canadian history, at $3.58-billion in insurable losses – and the 2023 B.C. wildfires that destroyed parts of West Kelowna and the Shuswap and caused losses of more than $720-million.

One drop of fire retardant from aircraft alone is nearly one-third of a lookout’s seasonal wages, for example.

AI solutions won’t come cheap. Detection systems come with massive capital costs: equipment, towers and the salaries of technicians to maintain them. Many fire towers are located in remote areas without road accessibility. Flying a technician out to repair a detection system damaged by, say, lightning or hail would cost thousands of dollars in helicopter airtime alone (rates range from $1,000 to $4,500 an hour depending on the helicopter, with a minimum flight time of three hours). By comparison, the average monthly salary of a lookout in Alberta is around $4,500.

paid $23 an hour, capped at seven hours and 25 minutes a day, despite often working from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m.

At first glance, the smoke was barely discernible: a faint grey smudge that would’ve gone undetected by the untrained eye. I’d been watching the same horizon in northwestern Alberta for over a year and I’d memorized every ridge, every cut line, every square parcel of farmland.

From up in the cupola, a Plexiglas dome perched atop a 100-foot steel tower, I spun around the Osborne Fire Finder, a large compass used to measure the directional bearings on wildfire smoke, and peered through a mounted rifle scope to line up the shot: 34 degrees, 15 minutes.

I estimated the distance of the smoke from the lookout: 31 kilometres.

The smoke column rose up like a black python. Black smoke meant the fire was likely burning in coniferous forest – spruce or pine – a more flammable, volatile fuel type.

“I’ve got eyes on a fire!” I yelled down to a four-man initial attack firefighting crew, stationed at my fire tower. They sprinted toward an A-Star helicopter, which took off a minute later.

“XMA26, this is XMA567 with a presmoke,” I spoke into the mic of the two-way radio, passing the details to the wildfire manager on duty, including an estimated location.

“Confirmed wildfire,” the crew leader said over the radio.

PWF031 ignited in June, 2017, and I was the first to detect it. It was a small, uneventful fire: A lightning bolt had struck a massive pile of wood debris in a cut block. The fire was just 0.01 hectares in size, and the four-person firefighting crew was able to extinguish it by 10 a.m. the following day. The wildfire, like the vast majority that I’d call in over my seven-year career as a lookout, would never make the headlines, and that’s exactly the way the system is designed to work.

In the summer of 2022, Firehawk was one of six companies that participated in a detection challenge in Alberta, facilitated by Alberta Wildfire, to test different wildfire-detection systems against the performance of a human lookout. All systems were installed at a lookout north of Slave Lake, a town that suffered $700-million in insurable losses from a wildfire in 2011.

The study measured the performance of detection distance, reporting speed and location accuracy, and, in all instances but one, the human lookout came out on top. The lookout outperformed the AI systems in the efficient detection of smokes within 40 kilometres, including a wildfire 46 kilometres away, which no other system detected.

I felt satisfied – although not at all surprised – upon hearing the results. It isn’t about just seeing smoke, it’s about knowing how to see and interpret smoke in a highly localized area. The report agreed with this logic, citing that of the six systems, those that involved “human operation” were the most successful at wildfire detection. Firehawk employs human technicians to verify AI’s potential detections, for example.

....

As noted I am a fan of technology. In the absence of people I trust in technology. That doesn't mean that I don't want people involved, or even that I believe that technology should replace people, or that people can't do a better job than technology. None of that is true.

My systems will always include people. The technology will always be an adjunct to the available people to make the available people more capable, to increase their area of influence.

 

[FJAG]

There were some old fire towers in the west end of the Petawawa ranges that look out onto Algonquin Park (for all that I know they may still be there).

Occasionally, as FOOs, we would use them for firing from. The view is similar to your pictures above. My favourite memory of that was at one fall practice camp when the instructor-in-gunnery with us designated a target for me with "Reference Red Tree ..." At that point in time there were probably about a hundred thousand red trees in sight in the impact area.