A MUTE, or multiple threat emitter simulator, which is designed to throw up electronic challenges to pilots attempting bombing missions at the Utah Test & Training Range.
(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)DUGWAY, Utah--"We train warriors and test weapons."
That's how Col. Jeff Snell, the commander of the 388th Range Squadron, which operates the gargantuan Utah Test & Training Range (UTTR), summed up the main mission of his command.
I had spent the day visiting part of UTTR's Maryland-size facilities, and discovered that Snell's words were a very succinct way of explaining what really goes on at the range: Air Force pilots fly in there in screaming-fast aircraft to run bombing training missions, often in advance of deployments to either Iraq or Afghanistan, and, less frequently, the Air Force uses the facility to test out various weapons systems.
Unless you knew it was there, you wouldn't know it was there. There is so much desert in northwest Utah, much of it with small, Afghanistan-like mountains, that except in very rare cases, the public never goes anywhere near UTTR. And that means that pilots flying missions there have almost unfettered scope for firing away at their targets, often with live bombs or missiles.
Indeed, unlike other bombing ranges around the country, all of which limit the direction in which missiles can be fired, UTTR offers the Air Force no such limitations. Instead, the property is so big that in most cases, there is nothing to stop pilots from firing any which way they please.
As part of my Road Trip 2009 project, I was given a tour of part of UTTR by Maj. David Dunklee, the detachment commander there. He explained that his team--mainly made up of civilians--have four main tasks: setting up and refurbishing targets; photographing missions, with centimeter accuracy; challenging pilots on missions with all manner of electronic threats in attempts to make the missions as realistic as possible; and basic infrastructure management.
While the first and the last of those duties are probably the most time-consuming, the most complex parts are the middle two: photography and challenging pilots during their missions.
The point of the photography component is to record every last bit of data about each and every mission that is run at UTTR, and that's a big number. According to Snell, there are about 15,000 sorties a year at UTTR, most of which are training runs. Pilots will fly all kinds of aircraft there, including the politically controversial F-22, B-1s, B-2s, F-15Es, and others.
Scattered around UTTR are small white domes called cine-theodolites. These are camera batteries in which operators are able, through very high-powered lenses, to capture imagery of elements of bombing missions, and, when combined with at least two and, ideally, three other Cine-Ts, as they're called, Dunklee's people can triangulate and create a "centimeter accuracy" record of what went on during a mission.
And that's important, because the critical part of the missions that are run at UTTR is giving decision makers, pilots and others involved in the Air Force, a way to see exactly went right and what went wrong during a mission, or with a test weapon, so that they can determine the pilot, or the weapon, are ready for prime time.
This is called "scoring" the missions, and with more than 300 targets scattered all over UTTR, it is important that Dunklee's team have infrastructure in place where and when it's needed so that every mission can be scored.
Realistic conditions
But pilots wouldn't get much out of running training bombing missions if they had free and clear access at their targets. That's why another task of the Dunklee's people is to run interference, and to, essentially, be the "bad guys," as John Bridgman, a quality assurance operator, put it. To that end, Bridgman and his colleagues are given control of systems that can transmit many different kind of threats that pilots will have to contend with as they scream over UTTR in their aircraft.
Several drones that will be used as unmanned flying targets for the pilots attempting missions at the range.
(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)Those threats can be anything that a pilot might encounter in actual combat: shoulder-launched missiles, surface-to-air missiles, other airplanes and so on. "We throw everything we can at them," Bridgman said, trying to simulate shooting them down.
Additionally, Bridgman's team moves its equipment around so that they can "attack" from anywhere, making it impossible for pilots to learn where the threats, of which there are at least 75 different kinds, might be coming from.
Another element of presenting pilots with realistic conditions is giving them moving targets. Already, UTTR has two autonomous tanks that are capable of pulling targets around on trailers at slow speeds. But now, the Air Force is preparing to roll out a new system, a GPS and transmitter-geared-up Ford F-350 truck that is designed to pull a target around without a driver at 55 miles an hour.
The truck cost the Air Force more than $100,000, Dunklee estimated, so it's crucial that pilots not hit it. But with precision weapons, and long trailers, no one is too worried about losing the pricey vehicle to a rogue bomb. Rather, they hope, pilots will hit the inexpensive targets placed on the trailer.
At UTTR, there are other target scenarios going on than just pilots firing directly at targets. Those types of missions are intended mainly as training for the pilots. But there are also test of weapons systems such as cruise missiles. In that case, pilots of bombers like a B-52 will fly into UTTR and fire such a missile, which, in an attempt to simulate the up to four hours of flight time it might have in combat, will proceed to "spaghetti" overhead until finally zeroing on its target.
Back at Mission Control
The command center for UTTR is at Hill Air Force Base, which is north of Salt Lake City and about a two-hour drive from UTTR. There, Snell and his team, as well as any of a wide range of "customers," including personnel from the Air Force, other military services, the Defense Department, defense contractors and others can watch the missions play out in real time, thanks to Dunklee's photography team.
The various tracking systems deployed at UTTR allow those in the command center to see very accurate and up-to-the-minute data about the missions, giving them the ability to understand precisely what is happening at any given moment and, later, to make decisions based on that information.
And while the most common mission of Snell's 388th Range Squadron is training pilots who are headed for combat, it is also to evaluate new weapons systems.
In August, then, the 388th will begin a weapons systems evaluation program (WSEP) that will last for three weeks. Personnel involved in the evaluation will begin to show up at Hill up to a couple weeks early for preparation. A WSEP, Snell said, is designed to produce an end-to-end examination of a weapons program, of everyone involved in it, and of their ability to react to conditions on the ground.
All told, given how many people are involved, both at UTTR and at Hill, how many bombs are dropped annually and how many sorties are flown there, it's amazing that the Air Force is able to pull it all off without the general public even knowing it is going on in their backyard.
But that's the advantage provided by a piece of land that is protected by mountains on several sides and which is the size of the state of Maryland. And while there have certainly been deadly cases of miscalculation in airborne attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force feels that those who train at UTTR are as well-prepared as a pilot can be before heading off into combat.
On June 22, Geek Gestalt will kick off Road Trip 2009. After driving more than 12,000 miles in the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest and the Southeast over the last three years, I'll be looking for the best in technology, science, military, nature, aviation and more in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and Colorado. If you have a suggestion for someplace to visit, drop me a line. And in the meantime, join the Road Trip 2009 Facebook page and follow my Twitter feed.
If you were trying to find a Nintendo Wii to give someone as a Christmas present and were counting on buying that Wii at a retailer like Best Buy or Target, odds are you came away empty-handed and frustrated.
That was certainly my experience when I spent a day looking to see where it might be possible to find a Wii near San Francisco.
But always, in the back of my mind, I figured that for those who were truly desperate to get ahold of one of the machines, a small mint would fetch one on eBay.
I remember, however, thinking that it was odd that, on the one time I looked to see what Wiis were selling for on eBay, they weren't that expensive. One could be had for between $300 and $400, which, while substantially higher than the $250 sticker price, wasn't all that much given the intense consumer hunger for them.
What didn't occur to me at the time was that Nintendo seems to have been actively trying to manage the eBay price of Wiis. That at least seems to be what was going on, according to a report on the video game blog Kotaku on Monday.
Titled "Nintendo torpedoes the Wii grey market," the Kotaku story details the Wii environment during the holiday period and also points out that the console was actually hard to find throughout 2007, not just before Christmas.
But for sure, it was the holiday rush that put the most scrutiny on the Wii's unavailability and the thought that those selling the consoles on eBay would be earning small fortunes, with plenty of news stories stoking the fires.
"Rumors of chip shortages ran rampant, and I personally was certain that the eBay grey market price for the (Wii) would...meet if not surpass the highest numbers seen during the initial late 2006 release window," Mike Fahey wrote on Kotaku. "Miraculously, that never happened. At the very last moment, in a series of moves that gained them criticism from fans, Nintendo managed to pull together enough supply to curb the often ridiculously inflated eBay demand before it was too late."
To be sure, Wiis were selling for more than $100 over retail on eBay and eventually spiked at $459 on November 21, according to the Kotaku report. But given that hot products sometimes sell for hundreds and hundreds more than sticker, this wasn't too bad.
But then Nintendo got involved and the prices dropped. On December 14, Nintendo held a conference call for reporters in which it talked about its plans for handling holiday demand for the Wii. It discussed many different options, including a rain-check system (which I discussed in my story about looking for Wiis), as well as new stock that would be available at a series of retailers.
And while the rain-checks wouldn't result in actual Wiis in hands until January and the retailers got limited shipments that quickly ran out, the moves, along with the outreach to video game journalists, seemed to have worked in creating a public impression that the consoles were at least marginally available and therefore it maybe wasn't necessary for consumers to pay a year's college tuition to get a Wii on eBay.
That's particularly true because the flood of consoles that hit retailers seemed to have quickly put a damper on eBay prices as many people apparently tried to make a killing there. The result was a huge number of Wiis offered for sale on eBay around December 17, and an average price for the consoles dropping below $400.
Thanks to major retailers getting new shipments of Wiis in the days before Christmas, the number of the consoles available on eBay spiked--and prices dropped.
(Credit: Kotaku)It's an interesting dynamic, especially when you consider that Wiis have been around for more than a year. And it's particularly interesting that, whether intended or not, Nintendo's actions can be tied directly to the significant dropping of prices for the consoles on eBay.
Whether this is a model that other manufacturers will follow in months or years to come remains to be seen.
It's fun for me to think about a room full of Target executives sitting around and making a decision about whether a video game is too violent for it to sell.
According to ABCNews.com, the giant retailer has decided not to carry the recent Rockstar Games gorefest, Manhunt 2, almost certainly because it has been at the center of the latest kerfuffle over the content of one of the publisher's titles.
"All video games and computer software sold at Target currently carry ratings by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board--from early childhood through mature audiences," ABC quoted a statement from Target as saying. "While Manhunt 2 was given a 'Mature' rating by the ESRB, we received additional information that players can potentially view previously filtered content by altering the game code. As a result, we have decided not the carry the game."
Rockstar Games' new title, 'Manhunt 2' has been the focus of a great deal of controversy because of its highly violent content. As a result, Target has decided not to carry the game.
(Credit: Rockstar Games)Now, this is not a new dynamic for Rockstar. You may well remember that in 2005, the company got into a disastrous scandal over vaguely explicit sexual content that was easily unlocked in the "M"-rated game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
And after that episode, Rockstar agreed that it would never, ever again hide objectionable material in the code of its games.
So here we are, two years later, and according to ABC, Rockstar decided to blur out some of the most violent parts of Manhunt 2 in search of an "M" rating, much as it locked away the explicit content in GTA: SA. But this time, the ESRB said it was satisfied that things were OK.
ABC reported that ESRB president Patricia Vance had no problem with its rating, stating that it was "still valid, and we stand behind it."
Yet, likely because of hype and controversy, Target decided that the game was too violent. Never mind that the retailer also sells such not-quite-pacifist fare as Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Ace Combat 6--which by the way features, on its cover, an exploding airplane and the implication of an instantly killed pilot.
No, Manhunt 2 is too violent. Now, I've never seen the game, and so I certainly cannot comment on how much more violent it is than the titles I just mentioned. But I do know that, for example, Wired writer Clive Thompson has been using Halo 3 as his own personal experiment in exploring the psychology of suicide bombers, and that Call of Duty 4, like most big-name war video games, is pretty much wall-to-wall carnage.
So my question is: When the Target executives were sitting in that room, trying to decide whether Manhunt 2 was too violent, what criteria did they use? It certainly couldn't be the inclusion of blood and guts. Nor of the concept of players or characters getting killed. Because all of that is readily available in the games it is happy to sell.
Rather, it is pointing to the fact that players can unlock the blurred-out elements of the game that Rockstar locked down in order to get an "M" rating instead of "Adults Only," the rating kiss of death when it comes to big-box retailers.
Well, fair enough, I suppose. I think it's short-sighted and random, but I guess Target gets to do whatever it wants. Even when the ratings board itself says it is satisfied that the game is suitable for 17-year-olds.
To my mind, the retailer is running scared from controversy. I know that a lot of parents are unhappy with violent video games because they think the games lead to real-world violence. And that may or may not be true. But I think the retailers either need to pull the plug on all these blood-filled gunfests or carry them all. Singling one out the way they did with Manhunt 2 seems to me to be a sign that these executives are rolling more with the tide of parental outrage than any particularly coherent or sincere policy. And that's a shame.
- prev
- 1
- next
