"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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?

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.

LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).

Without getting much into the technical end of this discussion (which other
posts have already done), it is safe to say that pretty much any cruise
missile system built 'on the cheap' (especially by second and third-world
standards) would be so obsolete at the time of its deployment that existing
and near-future US countermeasure systems will easily detect and deter their
success. Do you think that you are the only one who thought of this? The DoD
is very much aware of the cruise missile threat.


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).

While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm their
anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective
weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get
through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100?
More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and
launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by a
B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war?

You see, US weapons platforms are not designed purely as stand-alone
systems; each has specific mission parameters towards accomplishing an
overall goal. US surface ships can't defend against 100 cruise missiles
because because they dont have to; other missions and branches of the
service ensure that. Which is why it would be futile to set up a base and
launch system to send of hundereds of these missiles at once; it would
easily become target #1 on the hit list. (which is probably also why nobody
has done it)

Of course, unless they planned to use this strictly as a one-time only sneak
attack method for starting a war; then the tactic could meet some success.
But they would be hard pressed to not tip their hand prematurely, and wind
up with a visit from the B-2 before the facilities were even completed. And
even if by chance thy managed to pull something like that off, it would be a
suicide mission on a national scale, as the country who launched the attack
would become a parking lot within 48 hours.


Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather
than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over
the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it
to give targetting data for artillery.

It would be detected and shot down before it got a single shot off. Or it
would take one shot, then get shot down. The reason US UAVs don't get shot
down is because they either, 1) utilize low-observable (stealth) technology
(which is way beyond the capabilities and budget you've set), or 2) operate
in an environment in which we've gained air dominance, set up jamming, and
largely eliminated the surface-to-air threats (none of which is likely to
happen against the US). And even after all of that we still lose a few. So
what chance would anyone else have?


Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

During Gulf War I we approved, designed from scratch, tested, certifiied,
manufactured and fielded the GBU-28 in under a month to counter a specific
target. When a job needs to get done, it's surprising how fast we make
things happen.

Aside from that, US technology is literally quantum leaps beyond anything
that a potential adversary could acquire in the near-term, especially on the
cheap, as you are suggesting. There would have to be a massive technological
infrastructure to simply get to where we are, much less "get inside the
decision curve" of the US military. It just isn't feasible... and thats
exactly how we want it.

From a warfighting standpoint, there really is no way to take us on
directly, regardless of anything you've postulated in this post. The best
way to go about any kind of counter-strike against our forces is to get
about 10,000 guys, give them each some kind of RPG or shoulder-launched AT
missile, and let them scatter all over the place and make random attacks. It
still won't stop us, but it is the only hope of at least inflicting some
damage occasionally.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
New York City