![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
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 |