![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
or up high where the view is better, but also where it becomes easy meat for the layers of Patriots and Avengers fielded by the resident duckhunters, along with any covering Aegis controlled Standards in the littoral zone, and the ubiquitous F-15/F-22 CAP? These missiles might cost abpout $500,000 each whereas the LCCM might cost $10,000 each. Furthermore none of these missile systems are perfectly accurate, thus if many missiles are sent, some would get through. Also, if a missile is small (imagine there are several models) it might be hard for radar to pick it out, or it might have a radar return the same size as a bird's. and, (c) Development of a reliable, compact, onboard sensor suite that provides enough resolution to find likely targets, You can buy good resolution digital cameras in any good camera shop. and a darned intelligent software package to handle target discrimination (from background clutter, earlier posited garbage truck, etc.), There are plenty of people outside the USA who can program computers. and can also recognize an entire range of potential targets and select the one you would want hit from amongst all of them. Sorry, but I don't see ANY potential foes we might face in your near term overcoming one, much less all, of those hurdles, and I am sure I have missed a few more. My understanding is the laws of physics work the same for people in all countries. The second is when the sensor is in one place, and the shooter somewhere else; in those situations, what problems have the USA encountered, and how have they gone about solving them? Then you have to have a good secure datalink, and as it stands now the only folks that are likely to have those during the near-term are us and our good friends. Encryption technology is well-known and software to implement it can be downloaded from the net. Any competent programmer should be able to implement this. The best currently fielded US system of this nature is the SLAM-ER, with ATA--think of an extended range Harpoon with an ability to send its sensor images back to either a launch aircraft or another suitable platform, and which responds to that platform's commands to acheive retargeting or to allow more discriminative targeting. IIRC the new Tactical Tomahawk will also offer an inflight retargeting capability. You will note that the current trend in the US, which is the undeniable leader ins such capabilities, is to retain the man-in-the-loop at present, and that will not significantly change during the period you have set forth, so I seriously doubt Underwhatsistan is going to be able to do any better. The only modern technology necessary to make these missiles possible is computing (both hardware and software). Computing technology is available to any medium sized nation, and merely asserting that the USA must be the most advanced is exactly the sort of hubristic attitude that would help a medium-sized power at war with them. Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense contractors. Because they are more technologically advanced. Some technologies, for example high performance jet engines, require a large industrial base to make. The sort of technologies I'm talking about are ones that can potentially be produced a lot more cheaply, for example by adapting mass-produced (but nevertheless highly sophisticated) consumer products. Any medium-sized power should be able to produce embedded computer control systems. If it was that easy, others would be doing so already--they are not. This is a reasonable argument. Hiowever, people are developing cruise missiles: According to http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1212 "There are currently 161 operational UAV programs in 50 countries" There are probably also a number of secret programs, or programs to add better sensors/computers to existing UAVs/missiles. Heck, look at the Storm Shadow ALCM--a good system, but in no way is it verging on the system brilliance you envision for this asymetric uber-weapon, and Storm Shadow is the best that is offered by our European allies, who are, while generally a bit behind the US power curve in this area, light years ahead of the rest-of-the-world (possible exception of Israel, but if you take the Popeyes we got lynched into buying from them as an example, not too great either). What's thre story with the Popeye? Sorm Shadow/Scalp are already enjoying export success because the rest of the world can't do a better job on their own--the only way they get any capability like what you refer to is by buying from those western industries you rather prematurely wrote off. This is true for now. How long will it be? I predict that within 10 years, many countries will be producing missiles with roughly the same capabilities as Storm Shadow, but at much less cost. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |