"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:22:04 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:22:52 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

Lets define "middle ranking" and "war" first. India and China are
a far different matter from Pakistan, or SK/NK.

I wrote a long list of nations I had in mind in another post. All
the ones you mentioned above were on it (IIRC), except NK.

The first thing you have to consider is that no middle ranking
country could survive an "all out" conflit with the US, which means we
want to avoid tactics that might lead to the conflict transforming
into such a battle. No nukes, bio's, chems, etc. No direct attacks
on the CONUS.

This is true.

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

For china, maybe. Pakistan or Iran or India? less likely.

All these countries have access to embedded computer technology;
Germany could make cruise missiles 60 years ago, indicating that it
can't be that difficult to do, so I expect all these countries could
make the other parts themselves.

Merely having some degree of computer capability is not going to cut it; and
likening the V-1 to the kind of autonomous sytem you posit is laughable.


Even
LCCM's are fairly high technology, and 'dead reckoning' isn't as easy
as it sounds.

Why not?

Accumulated error, for one thing; you can't count on GPS for positional
updates. Your LORAN idea fell flatter than a pancake. So you are now left
with trying to cobble together an inertial nav system--more weight and
complexity, more R&D required, and in the end it is not going to give you
the kind of accuracy you need over the distances you will have to negotiate.


Cheap digistal cameras would be very easy to spoof-- smoke comes
to mind,

Yes, but you can't light fires *everywhere*.

What? You do know what those nifty little stubby, multi-barrel thingies
mounted on all of our armored vehicles are, don't you? And you don't have to
light fires--smoke pots work quite well, as do onboard smoke generators.


and if you start going for IR systems, you've just stopped
being "cheap".

That's mostly true, IR cameras cost around $5000. Probably it'd be
best to have plug-in sensors so ther operator could choose to add IR
when it's necessary for the job.

Now you need a whole new set of target data--more R&D again.


Also, computer's and programs that can pick out
targets against ground clutter are somewhat more difficult-- note the
fact that even now the U.S. still prefers laser guided missiles, and I
don't believe we have any autonomous weapons like this in stock
(although some are being made ready). The problems are tremendous.

sarcasmWell, obviously, if the USA can't do it, no-one else
can./sarcasm

The hell with your sarcasm, the fact is that it is a hell of a lot harder
nut to crack than you seem to comprehend. If you think otherwise, you need
to go into business for yourself and offer us this wonderful, cheap, easily
produced autonomous attack system to ther DoD. Guarantee they'd buy it--if
it worked, that is...


Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe
difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land
vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite
easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a
bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option
could be used).

More doable-- but if it isn't an active system, well the ocean is a
very big place. If it is, then it's either expensive, or very easy to
spoof.
As for a swarm, how to you choose targets? If there isn't any
inter-communiation, your entire swarm will attack the first ship it
sees...which usually won't be a major target. If there is inter-UAV
communication, you're back to having a very expensive system that even
the U.S. hasn't quite figured out, and is far beyhond the capabiliies
of most other nations.

Swarm co-ordination is a software problem. To solve it, you need a
few clever postgrad students, properly managed.

ROFLOL! Gee, I guess you also consider AI to be something you can acheive
over next weekend, right? Your habit of taking every serious problem with
your pet theory here and writing it off as a "software problem which is easy
to take care of" is getting a bit monotonous.


The problems is that these weapons wouldn't be "low cost" for other
nations-- they'd be major projects, taking forever because most
mid-range nations that migbht be in conflict with the West don't have
the vast depth of technical expertese we do.

But you don't need "vast depth". With the exception of computer and
imaging technology, *everything* you need to make a cruise missile
is 1940s tech.

Not if you want to make one that is lethal in the modern era.


One example-- low cost bombs using GPS and inertial guidence were
developed and fielded by the U.S.-- while the system itself is "low
cost" the effort to develop it is anything but. Low cost loitering
UAV's and cruise missiles are in development-- in the U.S. and UK. I
think maybe China and India might be able to conduct a design effort
like you sugggest, but it woudl be hard for them, and I can't see
other nations, like Pakistan, any African nations, or even smaller
western nations like Austraila, Canada, or Italy being able to even
come close.

Hell, india has not managed to get their Arjun tank project in order, and
Phil thinks they could pull this autonomous hunter/killer scheme off?


The idea that Italy couldn't make a cruise missile is silly IMO.

Sure they could--but they can't make the autonomous uberweapon you have
posited. Nothing to be ashamed of--right now neither can we. But you can,
because all of the problems are mere exercises in writing a few lines of new
code, right?

Brooks