"Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..
[snip]
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.

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? 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. 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.) 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?

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.

A presumption you make is that the Patriot is the weapon of choice. It
may be, then again perhaps a van with lot's of generators and an array of
antennae might be the counter measure. 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.

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)?

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.

[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.

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.)

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.

[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. 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.)

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

---
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.