"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..
I think that Phil is probably talking about weapons like the IAI Harpy.
It
is a relatively inexpensive "CM" used in SEAD operations. The only
significant technology employed by this vehicle is in the sensor (and
even
there, a "middle-ranking country" should not have a problem developing
or
procuring).

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).

And those questions are the kind that even the US, with its multi-billion
dollar R&D structure, is tangling with--do you really see some
second/third
world potential foe solving that dilemma over the posited period of the
next
ten years? I don't.

The US has a number of programs all employing various degrees of
technological innovation. While money has been allocated into the research
of new UAV/UCAV's, obviously that is a relatively small investment (when
compared to the total budget). Even with those programs, human involvement
seems to be essential in the operation of the system and targeting of the
enemy. Obviously the program selection, funding, and priority given differs
from country to country. I'm just stating that another country could take a
position on this matter that might differ from that of the US.

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.

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.

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)?

Third, the number of Patiots
that can be made available is not a trivial number--count the number of
missiles available in the uploaded canisters of a single battery, not to
mention the reminder of its ABL that is accompanying them.

How many Patriots are used against incoming artillery shells? Imagine that
instead of artillery shells you have hundreds of self-guided UAV's. Even
against a Harpy battery (54 incoming vehicles that will loiter until they
detonate), what exactly can a Patriot battery do? Now imagine a few hundred
more, some targeting AD and others armored vehicles or ships.

Finally, we have
a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers
and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS.

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.

Sorry, this just does not
look realistic to me. Other posters have taken the more proper tack--don't
try to confront the US on conventional terms and instead go the
unconventional warfare route--much more likely to at least stand a chance
at
success of sorts.

I'm not trying to get into the mind of every despot in the world. However,
many of them invest time and money on conventional programs (like ballistic
missiles). Compared to a ballistic missile system, wouldn't a sensor-fused
CM be a better investment?

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%.

I'd be surprised if this approach yielded a system that acheived a success
rate that reaches even double digits--for the commitment of significant
resources that would have been better used training irregulars and
creating
caches of weapons and explosives.

Irregulars are not going to stop the advance of any regular army (their
mission is quite different). What the army of a country needs to do is to
target the enemy formations. As was proved once again in Iraq, it is
suicidal to stand up against a better equipped and trained military in order
to fight a "conventional" war. The speed, accuracy and lethality ( the
"punch") cannot be countered with 1960's defensive technology. You can
however try to expose any weakness that might exist in the defenses of your
superior opponent (much like the Iraqi irregulars tried doing).

The Harpy has been around for a while. And in the mean time, technology
has
progressed and costs of acquisition declined (for commercially available
components).

Again, there is one heck of a difference between going after an active
emitter like an AD radar and passive targets, especially if you are the
disadvantaged party in terms if ISR and C-4, which we can bet the
opposition
would be in such a scenario.

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.

Brooks