ess (phil hunt) wrote:

:On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
:
:or up high where the view is better, but also where it
:becomes easy meat for the layers of Patriots and Avengers fielded by the
:resident duckhunters, along with any covering Aegis controlled Standards in
:the littoral zone, and the ubiquitous F-15/F-22 CAP?
:
:These missiles might cost abpout $500,000 each whereas the LCCM
:might cost $10,000 each.

And what percentage of your Elbonian national economy is that $10k?
How much infrastructure to produce it?

:Furthermore none of these missile systems
:are perfectly accurate, thus if many missiles are sent, some
:would get through.

Assuming any are accurate enough to actually make the target.

:Also, if a missile is small (imagine there are several models) it
:might be hard for radar to pick it out, or it might have a radar
:return the same size as a bird's.

Hogwash. Now you're to multiple models of stealthy weapons. Not
something Elbonia is going to produce.

:and, (c) Development of
:a reliable, compact, onboard sensor suite that provides enough resolution to
:find likely targets,
:
:You can buy good resolution digital cameras in any good camera shop.

Now look through the viewfinder and move the camera rapidly from side
to side. Not suitable for this application.

:and a darned intelligent software package to handle
:target discrimination (from background clutter, earlier posited garbage
:truck, etc.),
:
:There are plenty of people outside the USA who can program computers.

And how many of them are specialists in ATR and imagery?

: and can also recognize an entire range of potential targets
:and select the one you would want hit from amongst all of them. Sorry, but I
:don't see ANY potential foes we might face in your near term overcoming one,
:much less all, of those hurdles, and I am sure I have missed a few more.
:
:My understanding is the laws of physics work the same for people in
:all countries.

Yes, they do. That's your problem. You have no conception of how
hard the problem you're handwaving away is.

: The second is when the sensor is in one place, and the shooter
: somewhere else; in those situations, what problems have the USA
: encountered, and how have they gone about solving them?
:
:Then you have to have a good secure datalink, and as it stands now the only
:folks that are likely to have those during the near-term are us and our good
:friends.
:
:Encryption technology is well-known and software to implement it can
:be downloaded from the net. Any competent programmer should be able
:to implement this.

Now look for something that can encrypt a video stream in a secure and
jam-proof fashion and decrypt it on the other end fast enough to
essentially have zero control lag. Solving this, however, is much
more likely than solving the ATR and sensor problems you wave away
above.

:The best currently fielded US system of this nature is the SLAM-ER,
:with ATA--think of an extended range Harpoon with an ability to send its
:sensor images back to either a launch aircraft or another suitable platform,
:and which responds to that platform's commands to acheive retargeting or to
:allow more discriminative targeting. IIRC the new Tactical Tomahawk will
:also offer an inflight retargeting capability. You will note that the
:current trend in the US, which is the undeniable leader ins such
:capabilities, is to retain the man-in-the-loop at present, and that will not
:significantly change during the period you have set forth, so I seriously
:doubt Underwhatsistan is going to be able to do any better.
:
:The only modern technology necessary to make these missiles possible
:is computing (both hardware and software). Computing technology is
:available to any medium sized nation, and merely asserting that the
:USA must be the most advanced is exactly the sort of hubristic
:attitude that would help a medium-sized power at war with them.

I'll tell this to the folks on the SLAM-ER team next time I'm in St
Louis. I'm sure they'll find your contentions about how easy this is
to do about as funny as I do.

: Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy
: the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense
: contractors.
:
: Because they are more technologically advanced. Some technologies,
: for example high performance jet engines, require a large industrial
: base to make. The sort of technologies I'm talking about are ones
: that can potentially be produced a lot more cheaply, for example by
: adapting mass-produced (but nevertheless highly sophisticated)
: consumer products. Any medium-sized power should be able to produce
: embedded computer control systems.
:
:If it was that easy, others would be doing so already--they are not.
:
:This is a reasonable argument. Hiowever, people are developing
:cruise missiles: According to
:http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1212
:"There are currently 161 operational UAV programs in 50 countries"

You might want to look at what some of them are.

:There are probably also a number of secret programs, or programs to
:add better sensors/computers to existing UAVs/missiles.

No doubt. But they're not producing things that your average tribe
member is going to churn out in a mud hut, either.

:Sorm Shadow/Scalp are already enjoying export success because the
:rest of the world can't do a better job on their own--the only way they get
:any capability like what you refer to is by buying from those western
:industries you rather prematurely wrote off.
:
:This is true for now. How long will it be? I predict that within 10
:years, many countries will be producing missiles with roughly the
:same capabilities as Storm Shadow, but at much less cost.

I predict you're probably wrong.

You know, if it was as easy as you seem to think, my life would
certainly be a lot easier.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney