grrr. I hate all these crossposts. Are they really necessary?
(John Schilling) wrote in message
Yes, but even there it's important not to get caught up in the
game of winning the last war, designing the optimal force package
and tactical doctrine to defeat the US Military of 2003.
This is definitely true. Defeating the US Military of 2003 would
be one thing. Defeating the US military of the time period that
it took to be able to develop the technology to defeat of the US
military of 2003 would be a different story altogether.
So it's not enough to have a cheap guidance package that can distinguish
a tank from a rock, you now have to distinguish a tank from an inflatable
tank decoy. The United States Army of 2003 doesn't use inflatable decoys
because nobody has a precision deep strike capability against it, but if
an adversary changes the latter, the former is going to change as well.
Actually, I'm willing to bet that by the time that the R&D is done for
the cheap and effective cruise missiles is completed that the US
military
will have trotted out a very effective defense already. In fact, if I
am
not mistaken, they're working on it already.
"Next," Wilson said, "we're going after mortars."
http://www.ausa.org/www/news.nsf/0/0...t&Auto Framed
(THEL shot down a 152mm in the article)
LLNL is working on the 100+ kw solid state laser prototype for HELSTF
as we speak. (
http://www.llnl.gov/nif/lst/helstf.html) At that point
it gets cheaper to knock down the cheap but effective cruise missiles
than it does to make them. After all, it's just the cost of the
gasoline
(or kerosene if its a turbine and prolly would be) to power the
laser...
First couple generations I'd expect the lasers to be in dedicated AA
platforms. After that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they
proliferated
into the slot of the AA .50 cal on tanks. assuming they still have
MBTs
around then, of course.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-03k.html
I have my very strong doubts that a chemical laser will make its way
onto the battlefield, at least in an armored vehicle. I can't see
soldiers embracing something that if the tanks get blow open by
artillery
or mines will wipe out a company easy...flourine bad. Very bad.
Will
--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.