![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message . .. [snip] 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. The question you should be asking is just who are these people who have these sensors, the software, and the associated hardware to build such weapons? Certainly the Russians and Europeans could do such weapons, China, India, Israel, South Africa, and at a stretch perhaps some South American nations 'might' be capable of attempting such weapons. Being capable of attempting such a project does not imply success nor does it account for changes in behavior of the major powers (read U.S.) As to being a decade away, ask the Indians about how easy it is to develop cruise missiles, fighters or ships. They are credible, who else is? 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. A presumption you make is that the Patriot is the weapon of choice. It may be, then again perhaps a van with lot's of generators and an array of antennae might be the counter measure. Perhaps the counter to the Harpies are some alternative sensor fuzed shell. Maybe, a newer missile (Patriot light if you will) that is much 'dumber' and lower performing hence can be fired in greater numbers is the answer. Your proposition makes sense if you assume your target (the U.S.) stands still. It doesn't. 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)? Name the nations producing sensor fuzed munitions. Certainly the list of nations capable of 'developing' them may be large. But I must reiterate that deciding to develop a munition is not the same as fielding it. [snip --- about use of AA missiles and MANPADS against UAV's and the like] 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. Perhaps, it is largely because UAV's are NOT usually flying low and slow; we do not always know what and how many such UAV's are shot down and because for the U.S. at least it has not been a problem that needed solving. Just who has used these UAV's against the U.S. and how do you know they did not get rendered ineffective (jammed, shot down, performance degraded, control van attacked, etc.) For what it's worth, U.S. UAV's have been acknowleged to have been shot down in Iraq and Afghanistan, they probably were shot down in former Yugoslavia, the Israeli's have probably lost quite a few over Syria and Lebanon and the Indians and Pakistanians regularly lose UAV's. In my opinion they do not represent a golden BB, they are simply another tool. [snip] 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. It was difficult enough that in GW1 Iraqi's regularly had difficulty accurately hitting U.S. forces when they did shoot. Easy enough that though a few SCUDS and their ilk have caused damage, they really haven't been an effective military weapon except in those cases where they forced attrition through diverted forces due to political realities (i.e. keep Israel out of the war.) If it were easy to hit troops with self-targeting systems don't you think the U.S. would be doing it already? --- In principle, yes, such weapons could be developed. That doesn't mean however that any given country has all the bits and pieces, be it software, hardware, experience or otherwise. Also the counter to an asymmetric weapon can easily be just as assymetric. |
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 |