Jump to content

Talk:Blue force tracking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Context

[edit]

This page is marked "insufficient context", but it's not clear to me what is missing from the context. Can someone unfamiliar with the topic say what else this page should cover? — Dj segfault 08:39, 18 February 2008

Blue Force Tracking should certainly be merged w/FBCB2. FBCB2 is the primary system. BFT and EPLRS are the two possible configurations of FBCB2 when certain peripherals (GPS reciever and MT2011E Transciever for instance) are added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.34.247.9 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this should not be merged with FBCB2. FBCB2 is one of MANY BFT devices in use by the MAJCOM's today. The executive agent of JBFSA (Joint Blue Force Situational Awareness), ARSTRAT, who controls access and data sharing for BFT devices could point you in the direction of numerous BFT devices that are NOT FBCB2. BFT stands on its own as a generic term for military GPS tracking regardless of service or use. This article has a definite Army bent to it, and should represent a more unified Joint version of BFT. Renlain 14:51, 18 NOV 08

If I understand correctly that Blue Force Tracker is a joint system to be employed by all services, while Force XXI Battle Command Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) is an Army construct, then, no, BFT should remain a separate entry in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nav130 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site has been in need of one bit of information corrected over the last at LEAST THREE years. Northrup Grumman is no longer the Prime Contractor for this system, as they just provide installation kits. Engineering Solutions and Products, Inc is now the company that installs and provides all technical support for the variant in the article. *is a member of Engineering Solutions and Products, aka ESP, Inc*89.211.62.250 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is referring to one particular system to accomplish the goal of Blue Force Tracking, not the generic term. I propose that the page being renamed "Blue Force Tracker" or to the preferred name of the specific system this page discusses. At the very least, a page with this title should contain an accurate description of the term Blue Force Tracking. I nominate the following:

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) describes BFT as the “employment of techniques to actively or passively identify and track US, allied, or coalition forces for the purpose of providing enhanced battlespace situational awareness.”

Just for the record, there are a number of systems today, in a number of NATO nations, that are employed to accomplish these goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.74.0 (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've change the thing about "Blue" in Blue Force Tracker referring to cold weather or something. Blue is the color used for friendly forces in NATO standard symbology.CatCube (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Anchor?

[edit]

How far does this lag current technology?

Your COTS phone does this, surfs the web securely, processes MS Office and plays video and music.

Does this articled belong in the general topic that includes the $100,000 toilet seat?

It is an interesting and informative article (thank you), but it seems to describe dated technology and deserves further comment along that line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.52.159 (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BFT integrates features that are indeed available on the civilian market, cell phones (as you pointed out), SATCOM, GIS, data fusion, etc. How well does your COTS phone do all of those things when the cell network is down? As for how far the technology lags, that is a subjective question (How much is this year's Garmin better than a 2010 Garmin with updated maps?), but if you can find sources that analyze this topic, please, be bold!153.26.178.61 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blue Force Tracking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

[edit]

Is it "blue force tracking", "Blue Force Tracking", or something else? TypoBoy (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept vs System

[edit]

This article seems focused on defining the concept of “blue force tracking” rather than describing a tangible system. Rather, it might be describing a class of systems instead of a single electronic or computer system. As such, I am moving this article out of the Category:Military electronics of the United States since it doesn’t seem to belong. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 23:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_force_tracking&oldid=1241753350"