Stryker/C-130 Pics

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:07:59 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:06:30 -0400, Paul Austin

So what data rate will FCS run at? Consider a unit such as a Brigade
- will the data links be radio, or something else (laser beams?
fiber optic? ethernet?) or a mixture?

The first Brigade XXI exercises were run using 64Kbps links over HF
radios. Not suprisingly, trials proved that slow a data fabric
completely inadequate.

Presumably because all the nodes were trying to talk at the same
time. What if there were fewer nodes on the network, say 200 instead
of 1000?

There are advantages to HF links but VHF, UHF
and higher frequencies will be used. The Navy is planning EHF links.

Higher frequencies mean more banfdwidth, I assume. What are the
advantages of lower frequencies - range?

Iv wonder if there are any plans to civilianise this technology; it
might complement WiFi quite well.

Comms equipment is giving out radio signals; if these can be
pinpointed and targeted, the unit is ****ed. Imagine a swarm of
cheap cruise missiles[1] homing in on radio signals from the nodes
on the tactical internet.

Not nearly as easy as it seems, since everything is spread spectrum,
fast hopping and anti-jam.

The signal must be such that the extended receiver can hear it. So
others can too, in principle. (Though detecting the signal and
knowing where it's from aren't the same thing). I'm not a radio
engineer but I can imagine a few ways how direction-finding might
work; for example place two (or 3) detectors a few meters apart
and calculate the time delay between each one receiving the signal.

No. Paul is correct, DF'ing a "frequency agile" (or "hopping")
transmitter is no easy task. For example, the standard US SINCGARS
radio changes frequencies about one hundred times per *second*, over a
pretty wide band of freq's (this is why synchronization of the radios
on a time basis is critical to succesful operation of the net). It is
hard enough for the average "rest of the world" intel unit to DF an
old fashioned non-hopping transmitter if the radio operator uses good
RTO procedures--trying to pluck enough of these random
fractional-second bursts out of the ether to determine a direction is
more difficult by a few orders of magnitude.


If your comms are degraded badly enough, you'll lose whether you
have light forces or tanks; even the best MBTs don't have perfect
protection against ATGMs, etc.

MBTs are nearly immune to ATGMs now. About the best that can be hoped
for by man-portable systems is a mobility kill.

Oh? I was under the impression the Russian Kornet was pretty good.

Heavier ATGMs have
some hope of doing more than blowing a track but not along the frontal
arc.

ATGMs don't have to hit the front; they could be designed to hit the
top, for example. And making the warhead bigger is not a problem to
do, if the missile vis carried by a vehicle.

The fact that most anti-armor development programs seem to be headed
in the kinetic penetrator direction seems to support the idea that the
chemical energy approach is waning.

Brooks


Does this work? It sounds nice, but I'm not sure if it's practical.
What if the capacitors short out? That would release large amounts
of enery, if it's enough to melt a solid piece of metal.

Success is a matter of sufficient development I find the notion of
melting a 10-20mm thick rod of refractory metal in microseconds
literally incredible.

I'm a bit dubious too.