"Anthony Garcia" wrote in message
. com...
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.

The question you should be asking is just who are these people who have
these sensors, the software, and the associated hardware to build such
weapons?

Or sell components for those weapons...

Certainly the Russians and Europeans could do such weapons,
China, India, Israel, South Africa, and at a stretch perhaps some South
American nations 'might' be capable of attempting such weapons.

Anyone can attempt such weapons (even non-state entities). If you lack local
resources, the question is how easily can you obtain the skills or
technology you lack.

Being
capable of attempting such a project does not imply success nor does it
account for changes in behavior of the major powers (read U.S.)

If someone (foe) fielded such a weapon, I'm sure the "major powers" (the
manufacturers that can sell the counter weapon) would change behavior
(priorities).

Numerous states have or had embarked on chemical warfare and ballistic
missile technology (and not quite "successfully") and that surely impacted
strategic and tactical decision-making.

As to
being a decade away, ask the Indians about how easy it is to develop
cruise missiles, fighters or ships. They are credible, who else is?

Whatever problems they have seem to be quickly resolved when the skill and
technology they lack (or have serious problems with) is acquired from abroad
(for example, jet engines, MBT chassis, etc.)

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.

A presumption you make is that the Patriot is the weapon of choice. It

How many practical (fielded) choices would the US have against Harpy-like
weapon systems (UAV's that autonomously target ground forces)?

may be, then again perhaps a van with lot's of generators and an array of
antennae might be the counter measure.

How so? How would you counter the SMArt shell today?

Perhaps the counter to the Harpies
are some alternative sensor fuzed shell. Maybe, a newer missile (Patriot
light if you will) that is much 'dumber' and lower performing hence can be
fired in greater numbers is the answer. Your proposition makes sense if
you assume your target (the U.S.) stands still. It doesn't.

Developing and deploying a new missile is not something that can be
accomplished in a day. New weapons that autonomously select and destroy
their targets are here, some on the form of artillery shells, UAV's, or
mines. Their sensors work as differently as their delivery method.

Does a fielded system exist to effectively counter such weapons? How do you
counter a Harpy? What about the SMArt? What about an unknown weapon that
shares some properties from both?

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)?

Name the nations producing sensor fuzed munitions. Certainly the list of
nations capable of 'developing' them may be large. But I must reiterate
that deciding to develop a munition is not the same as fielding it.

How "high-tech" is the SMArt (with its sensor) considered, and how many
countries would be denied access to it (in the form of a procurement)?

[snip --- about use of AA missiles and MANPADS against UAV's and the like]

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.

Perhaps, it is largely because UAV's are NOT usually flying low and slow;
we do not always know what and how many such UAV's are shot down and
because for the U.S. at least it has not been a problem that needed
solving.

Which is my point. That a large percentage of UAV's are not lost on their
missions.

Just who has used these UAV's against the U.S. and how do you know they
did not get rendered ineffective (jammed, shot down, performance degraded,
control van attacked, etc.)

I'm not looking at a historical example of a UAV used against the US. I'm
looking at how UAV's in general have fared against AD, and developments in
sensors that can independently identify their target.

For what it's worth, U.S. UAV's have been acknowleged to have been shot
down in Iraq and Afghanistan, they probably were shot down in former
Yugoslavia, the Israeli's have probably lost quite a few over Syria and
Lebanon and the Indians and Pakistanians regularly lose UAV's. In my
opinion they do not represent a golden BB, they are simply another tool.

Agreed. The original poster was however asking if they (UAV's) can be used
in a massive attack. I believe that developments in sensors and UAV
technology certainly indicate that such a weapon can (or will) be
introduced.

[snip]

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.

It was difficult enough that in GW1 Iraqi's regularly had difficulty
accurately hitting U.S. forces when they did shoot.

That is because the Iraqi's used untrained conscripts, and their weapons
used inferior sensors. Why shouldn't such a country use systems with minimal
soldier interaction, with a large range, and with the ability to
autonomously identify and kill its target? This is not so much a "US vs.
Iraq" statement, but rather one that recognizes that some countries cannot
be successful by employing existing convention weapon systems due to the
technological gap that exists between then and their adversary.

Easy enough that
though a few SCUDS and their ilk have caused damage, they really haven't
been an effective military weapon except in those cases where they forced
attrition through diverted forces due to political realities (i.e. keep
Israel out of the war.)

Once again agreed. Which is yet another reason why some nations (that
currently invest resources in ballistic missile technology) could or should
instead invest in the types of weapons discussed.

If it were easy to hit troops with self-targeting systems don't you think
the U.S. would be doing it already?

There are a number of reasons why the US does not use such systems
(tactical, strategic, political, and diplomatic). That however has not
prevented other countries from developing and fielding self-targeting
systems.

---
In principle, yes, such weapons could be developed. That doesn't mean
however that any given country has all the bits and pieces, be it
software, hardware, experience or otherwise. Also the counter to an
asymmetric weapon can easily be just as assymetric.