ess (phil hunt) wrote:

:On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:55:13 GMT, Dionysios Pilarinos wrote:
:
: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).
:
:This is mostly a software problem. There are programmers in all
:middle-ranking countries. All of the ones I listed (in my other
ost) have plenty of programmers.

No. It is mostly an image processing problem. Having lots of
'programmers' won't help you.

: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.
:
:Countering sensors on the cruise missile might be difficult. Lasers
:might work.

Of course it might be difficult. You've created magic weapons.

: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%.
:
:If they can be mass-produced for $10,000 each, then a $1 bn
rocurement -- and the sort of countries we're talking about
:typically sign bigger weapons contracts than that -- would buy
:100,000 missiles.

I think you need to go look at this again. Hell, why not assume they
cost $1 each and can be made by kindergardeners?

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