"Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..
I think that Phil is probably talking about weapons like the IAI
Harpy.
It
is a relatively inexpensive "CM" used in SEAD operations. The only
significant technology employed by this vehicle is in the sensor (and
even
there, a "middle-ranking country" should not have a problem developing
or
procuring).

The question really is if it is possible to integrate different
sensors
(TV,
IR) on such vehicles, if you can accurately identify targets (based on
some
signature characteristics or library), and how effective it could be
(at
not
killing your own or being easily defeated by the enemy).

And those questions are the kind that even the US, with its
multi-billion
dollar R&D structure, is tangling with--do you really see some
second/third
world potential foe solving that dilemma over the posited period of the
next
ten years? I don't.

The US has a number of programs all employing various degrees of
technological innovation. While money has been allocated into the research
of new UAV/UCAV's, obviously that is a relatively small investment (when
compared to the total budget). Even with those programs, human involvement
seems to be essential in the operation of the system and targeting of the
enemy. Obviously the program selection, funding, and priority given
differs
from country to country. I'm just stating that another country could take
a
position on this matter that might differ from that of the US.

That depends on the programming of the weapon. The same thought
process
that
goes into autonomously targeted systems (ALARM, Harpy, SMArt, etc.) -
systems that can be launched against enemy positions and where the
weapon
autonomously selects on locks on to its target - would be used.

Those home on active emitters, keeping their last transmitting location
in
their memory in case they drop off the air. That is a big difference
from
going after targets that are purely passive and are not radiating (or
not
radiating anything you can actually read with a system that could be
placed
in such a small weapon--detecting the frequency agile signals from
vehicle
FM radios is not going to work).

There is a reason I included the SMArt artillery round. It's advanced
sensor
will detect and target armored vehicles (MBT's, AIFV's, APC's, etc.) while
"loitering" over enemy positions. Depending on the target, different
sensors
can be used that can target different target characteristics. The SMArt
155mm artillery shell is already in service, so the technology for fusing
such sensors to UAV's (like the Harpy) is surely not a decade away.

SMArt is a contemporary of the (since cancelled?) SADARM. Both are
terminally guided munitions--emphasis on TERMINALLY. A far cry from being an
autonomous hunter/killer system capable of finding a target cluster and then
engaging it. You can add the BAT and even the Skeet terminally guided
submunitions to this same category, and the US has only recently fielded
cluster bombs capable of delivering these (including WCMD variant--CBU-105
IIRC). Great terminal killers--incapable of being wide area hunter killers
as this scheme posits.


Good questions for the side employing them. If you are indeed talking
about
a "massive" use of such weapons, I think that the Patriots (and other
anti-aircraft systems) would be quickly (and quite expensively)
overwhelmed.
Overwhelming, confusing, and otherwise countering the sensor might be
a
better approach.

I disagree. On the one hand you are going to have to use a pretty
complex
CM
of sorts, as we have already seen from the discussion to this point, if
you
are going to engage previously unlocated targets, so the idea that these
things will be cheaply turned out in some converted auto garage is not
going
to cut it.

A UAV is not an expensive proposition when you take away every aspect of
human control after launch. It can also be deployed in such a fashion that
few soldiers are needed in their transporation, targeting, and launch.

For example, Turkey recently purchased roughly 100 Harpy's. While the cost
has not been disclosed (at least to any sources I have access to), it is
not
considered to be "prohibitive" or even "substantial". A single
truck-transporter can carry 18 such weapons in canisters, and a battery of
3
can launch 54 of them simultaneously.

Again, these are not autonomous systems you bring up. If you expect the
average second/third world foe to be able to (a) develop a UAV that is
capable of performing this kind of autonomous attack, (b) Make it small
enough to be survivable and useable in a field environment, while also
packing in all of the sensors and computers it needs to get there, and
weapons it needs to be lethal once it arrives, (c) Have it retain a
significant degree of survivability in the face of US defensive systems, and
(d) do all of this over the next ten years; then we are just going to have
to disagree, because I don't see all of that coming together until hell
freezes over.


They will also be expensive--the R&D effort is still required,
since what has been postulated is essentially an autonomous attack
system
that does not currently exist even in the US.

But it does exist in the form of an artillery shell that can be fired 40
km
away from its target (in the case of weapons against armored vehicles).
Why
not extend that range to perhaps 100+ km by fusing it onto the body of a
UAV
(like the one used against radar transmissions)?

TERMINAL guidance only! They do not employ systems capable navigating the
delivery vehicle from launch point to attack point (preferably in a
survivable mode), of scanning wide areas, detecting a target, classifying
it, deciding to attack it, and then executing said attack, OK? BIG
difference from what the original poster posited.


Third, the number of Patiots
that can be made available is not a trivial number--count the number of
missiles available in the uploaded canisters of a single battery, not to
mention the reminder of its ABL that is accompanying them.

How many Patriots are used against incoming artillery shells? Imagine that
instead of artillery shells you have hundreds of self-guided UAV's. Even
against a Harpy battery (54 incoming vehicles that will loiter until they
detonate), what exactly can a Patriot battery do? Now imagine a few
hundred
more, some targeting AD and others armored vehicles or ships.

The likely expeditionary corps will include some 500-1000 Patriots in its
ABL, with some one-third of those ready for immediate use. Add in another
boatload of Stingers mounted on everything from Avenger and BSFV to the
traditional MANPADS mount. What that adds up to is anything but asymetric
warfare--it is just about the opposite, with the foe trying to out-tech the
US--bad move IMO.

As to arty--let 'em fire. First rounds get picked up by the Firefinder
radars, and before their first volley has arrived the MLRS and ATACMS are on
the way towards smothering their firing locations. The intelligent foe does
NOT want to get into an arty duel with US forces--ask the Iraqis who tried
that during ODS (those that survived the counter-battery effort, that is).


Finally, we have
a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on
Avengers
and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS.

Perhaps I'm not informed on the subject, but how many UAV's or CM's have
been shot down by heat-seeking MANPADS (ever)? Some UAV's have been lost
in
the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan due to ground fire (AAA), but I've
never
heard of a confirmed loss due to a MANPAD.

I doubt we know exactly what system has accounted for many of the various
UAV losses over the years. Suffice it to say thet the RIM-92 Stinger is
capable of engaging both UAV's and CM's (there has been a fair amount of
work here in the US on developing the TTP's for use of Avenger specifically
in the anti-CM role).


Sorry, this just does not
look realistic to me. Other posters have taken the more proper
tack--don't
try to confront the US on conventional terms and instead go the
unconventional warfare route--much more likely to at least stand a
chance
at
success of sorts.

I'm not trying to get into the mind of every despot in the world. However,
many of them invest time and money on conventional programs (like
ballistic
missiles). Compared to a ballistic missile system, wouldn't a sensor-fused
CM be a better investment?

Not if they lack the ISR system to be able to get it into the right target
box where it can release its SFW's, and that is not a very large footprint
that it has to hit. Not if they lack the ability to give the CM a pretty
good chance of survival. And most assuredly not if it is to be, as this
theory was posited, an autonomous attack system--that is just beyond the
capabilities of likely threats during the near-term period under
consideration.


If you are talking about a "massive" deployment of such inexpensive
weapons,
you might not need to concern yourself with those that "miss".
Depending
on
the cost of the vehicles, the total number acquired, and the budget
allocated, the user might be satisfied with a success rate well below
100%.

I'd be surprised if this approach yielded a system that acheived a
success
rate that reaches even double digits--for the commitment of significant
resources that would have been better used training irregulars and
creating
caches of weapons and explosives.

Irregulars are not going to stop the advance of any regular army (their
mission is quite different). What the army of a country needs to do is to
target the enemy formations. As was proved once again in Iraq, it is
suicidal to stand up against a better equipped and trained military in
order
to fight a "conventional" war. The speed, accuracy and lethality ( the
"punch") cannot be countered with 1960's defensive technology. You can
however try to expose any weakness that might exist in the defenses of
your
superior opponent (much like the Iraqi irregulars tried doing).

Sorry, but you are missing the whole concept of asymetric warfare. What you,
and the opriginal poster, are proposing is attacking the US military's
strengths, not its vulnerabilities--that is not asymetric. It is, however, a
good way to acheive martyrdom.


The Harpy has been around for a while. And in the mean time,
technology
has
progressed and costs of acquisition declined (for commercially
available
components).

Again, there is one heck of a difference between going after an active
emitter like an AD radar and passive targets, especially if you are the
disadvantaged party in terms if ISR and C-4, which we can bet the
opposition
would be in such a scenario.

How difficult was it for the Iraqi's to know the general geographic
position
of the US troops? Turning on CNN being one easy way. Imagine if they could
send self-targeting systems into the general location from 40 km away
(using
SMArt), what the US position would be. Obviously the Air Force would have
something to target (those nice artillery pieces), so that could not last
for long. But what if some regular-looking trucks a few hundred km's away
were achieving the same result? In that scenario, all I can do is remember
the "Scud hunt" from GW1.

You just don't get it--you send all of the SMArt's you want at the "general
position" of a ground unit and you will most likely succeed in (a) littering
the desert with a lot of wasted SFW's, and (b) open your delivery forces up
to immediate, and lethal, return fires. SFW's have to be fired into a
position directly over the desired target--not 500 meters this way, or 500
meters that way--right over it. In realtime. Against a moving US force. Use
CNN all you want and it is not going to solve those problems.

Brooks


Brooks