asymetric warfare

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..
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.

SMArt is a contemporary of the (since cancelled?) SADARM. Both are
terminally guided munitions--emphasis on TERMINALLY. A far cry from being
an
autonomous hunter/killer system capable of finding a target cluster and
then
engaging it. You can add the BAT and even the Skeet terminally guided
submunitions to this same category, and the US has only recently fielded
cluster bombs capable of delivering these (including WCMD variant--CBU-105
IIRC). Great terminal killers--incapable of being wide area hunter killers
as this scheme posits.

Define what you mean by "terminal killer". The SMArt (actually the
submunition) is delivered to the general location of enemy forces after
being expelled from an artillery piece some 40km away. The artillery piece
or battery that fired the round made the initial targeting based on
information gathered. How would all this change if you changed the delivery
vehicle of the submunition?

The aerial vehicle (UAV) would deliver the submunition to a specific area
(much like the arty shell does). Instead of loitering for a limited time (as
the SMArt does while it descends with a parachute), the UAV could follow a
programmed pattern until a target is identified.

Obviously some work would be required in fusing the UAV and SMArt (or
whatever else) sensors, and writing the software that would make it work
effectively. I'm just saying that the technology is currently present where
this would not require 10 years to develop.

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.

Again, these are not autonomous systems you bring up.

The Harpy sure is. And all I'm saying is that fusing other sensors to a
vehicle like the Harpy (to allow the targeting of MBT's, APC's, etc.) would
not require 10 years.

If you expect the
average second/third world foe to be able to (a) develop a UAV that is
capable of performing this kind of autonomous attack,

They can also acquire them (or certain technologies needed). Most countries
in the world do not have a serious problem gaining access to these (often
times commercially available) systems. Not everyone is facing an arms
embargo.

(b) Make it small
enough to be survivable and useable in a field environment, while also
packing in all of the sensors and computers it needs to get there, and
weapons it needs to be lethal once it arrives,

How easy do you think it would be for any military to find and destroy the
Harpy's that the Turkish forces have in their arsenal? I'm honestly quite
curious to know how you would counter such a threat (which in this case is
directed only against AD and surface ships).

(c) Have it retain a
significant degree of survivability in the face of US defensive systems,
and

The point of the original poster was that if you can deploy them on a
massive scale, you might not have to worry about the defensive systems
(which even if effective would be overwhelmed).

(d) do all of this over the next ten years; then we are just going to have
to disagree, because I don't see all of that coming together until hell
freezes over.

So what horizon do you believe in? Obviously UCAV's are operational as we
speak, so what will it take to remove the human operator from the terminal
guidance of the system (and I say terminal because I will assume that
auto-pilot takes care of post-launch navigation and piloting)?

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)?

TERMINAL guidance only!

Target identification need only be "terminal" in nature. We are talking
about UAV's that would be directed to fly to a location and loiter until a
target is presented.

They do not employ systems capable navigating the
delivery vehicle from launch point to attack point (preferably in a
survivable mode),

There are many UAV's and CM's that do just that (with no immediate human
interaction).

of scanning wide areas, detecting a target, classifying
it, deciding to attack it, and then executing said attack, OK? BIG
difference from what the original poster posited.

The sensor (like that in the SMArt submunition) does NOT need to scan a wide
area. The UAV's flight pattern will determine the areas the sensor would be
exposed to.

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.

The likely expeditionary corps will include some 500-1000 Patriots in its
ABL, with some one-third of those ready for immediate use. Add in another
boatload of Stingers mounted on everything from Avenger and BSFV to the
traditional MANPADS mount. What that adds up to is anything but asymetric
warfare--it is just about the opposite, with the foe trying to out-tech
the
US--bad move IMO.

Figthing the US is a "bad move IMO"!
But regardless of that fact, someone out there might just try to do so.
Developing such autonomous weapons appears to be a more logical decision
than those reached (like for example ballistic missiles and WMD).

As to arty--let 'em fire. First rounds get picked up by the Firefinder
radars, and before their first volley has arrived the MLRS and ATACMS are
on
the way towards smothering their firing locations. The intelligent foe
does
NOT want to get into an arty duel with US forces--ask the Iraqis who tried
that during ODS (those that survived the counter-battery effort, that is).

It is not suicide when they cannot detect you and when you are out of range
(of their guns). Certainly the available arty out there (plus the required
expenditures) does make their use SUICIDAL against any enemy that employs
fire-finding radars and weapon systems with longer ranges. This is exactly
why an autonomous CM-type weapon system would be better (being outside the
range of both radar and even the ATACM).

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.

I doubt we know exactly what system has accounted for many of the various
UAV losses over the years. Suffice it to say thet the RIM-92 Stinger is
capable of engaging both UAV's and CM's (there has been a fair amount of
work here in the US on developing the TTP's for use of Avenger
specifically
in the anti-CM role).

I have serious reservations about the use of the Stinger (or other MANPAD
systems)against UAV's or other small low-flying targets. How much time is
the target exposed to your sensor, and how quickly can you acquire it? It's
hard enough against helo's, so I don't think they'd be too effective against
a massive UAV/CM-type assault.

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?

Not if they lack the ISR system to be able to get it into the right target
box where it can release its SFW's,

How much intelligence is needed to have a UAV fly a pattern in some general
geographic area? If you know the enemy and his supply chain is X km from a
given point (say your friendly positions) why not send out scores of the
weapons to fly patterns over the area, picking off any target that matches
your search criteria?

and that is not a very large footprint
that it has to hit. Not if they lack the ability to give the CM a pretty
good chance of survival. And most assuredly not if it is to be, as this
theory was posited, an autonomous attack system--that is just beyond the
capabilities of likely threats during the near-term period under
consideration.

I'll have to respectfully disagree.

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).

Sorry, but you are missing the whole concept of asymetric warfare. What
you,
and the opriginal poster, are proposing is attacking the US military's
strengths, not its vulnerabilities--that is not asymetric. It is, however,
a
good way to acheive martyrdom.

Who says that the US's (or a modern army's) defenses are not a
vulnerability? Who exactly was the last foe to have really tested them out?

How is using irregulars to destroy positions and forces (away from the
"front lines") different from using the kind of weapons we are discussing?
How can you call one "asymmetric" and exclude the other one simply because
it utilizes technology and not martyrs?

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.

You just don't get it--you send all of the SMArt's you want at the
"general
position" of a ground unit and you will most likely succeed in (a)
littering
the desert with a lot of wasted SFW's, and

You would if you were using the SMArt as it exists today. Of course it
"loiters" from the point its chute deploys until it hits the ground. What if
it were able to loiter for hours, scanning hundreds of miles?

(b) open your delivery forces up
to immediate, and lethal, return fires.

How would you identify where a UAV was launched from? Minimal heat
signature, non-ballistic track, difficulty in radar-tracking (from AWACS or
ground radar), non-distinct launch platform.

SFW's have to be fired into a
position directly over the desired target--not 500 meters this way, or 500
meters that way--right over it. In realtime. Against a moving US force.
Use
CNN all you want and it is not going to solve those problems.

It's not "directly over" the desired target. And obviously the various
weapons I have mentioned differ due to their sensors and delivery method.
However, have a UAV fly a pattern over "predicted" locations in a general
geographic area you know forces are present in. Soon enough, that sensor
will lock onto something.

Brooks