Defense against UAV's

wrote:
I kept specifying "small, stealthy UAVs" - which by definition would
be used for recce, not attack - as these are the hardest targets to
detect and destroy. Now it may be that powerful navies will not be too
troubled by what they can do (you can't hide a ship too easily anyway,
so their enemy will know they are there)...

On reflection I was wrong there - even small UAVs could pose a serious
threat to ships coming within artillery range of a hostile shore, since
they could lase the ship to guide in laser-homing artillery rounds like
the Russian Krasnopol.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

wrote:

On reflection I was wrong there - even small UAVs could pose a serious
threat to ships coming within artillery range of a hostile shore, since
they could lase the ship to guide in laser-homing artillery rounds like
the Russian Krasnopol.

This line of thought might lead into interesting possible conclusion:
return of coastal artillery. If target acquisition works, why not use
advanced SPH's for anti-ship use? If ERGM type rounds can be used they
have more range than most ASM's. SPH's should be also quite flexible as
they could be used to attack land targets as well, a capability which
land-fired ASM's are mostly not suitable for.

A four gun battery firing ERGM-type rounds within MRSI range: maybe
12-20 inbound very small, very fast targets, repeated for perhaps four
times within four minutes, with total of 48-80 inbound rounds. Perhaps
not possible for Iran-type state for a long time, but maybe for China
(and Taiwan as well...).

Mvh,
Jon K

kirjoitti:

This line of thought might lead into interesting possible conclusion:
return of coastal artillery. If target acquisition works, why not use
advanced SPH's for anti-ship use? If ERGM type rounds can be used they

And, obviously I don't mean in sense of ERGM rounds or copies of them,
but in sense of rocket assisted guided rounds, with whatever guidance
method suitable for a/s use.

Mvh,
Jon K

wrote in message
ps.com...

wrote:
I kept specifying "small, stealthy UAVs" - which by definition would
be used for recce, not attack - as these are the hardest targets to
detect and destroy. Now it may be that powerful navies will not be too
troubled by what they can do (you can't hide a ship too easily anyway,
so their enemy will know they are there)...

On reflection I was wrong there - even small UAVs could pose a serious
threat to ships coming within artillery range of a hostile shore, since
they could lase the ship to guide in laser-homing artillery rounds like
the Russian Krasnopol.

laser guided weapons gave a tendency to attack the sun. you only see the
good ones on tv, not all the misses.
rocks eated by the sun. reflections off of pools of water or streams can
also distract them.

"ray o'hara" wrote in message
...



laser guided weapons gave a tendency to attack the sun. you only see the
good ones on tv, not all the misses.

Utter ********, the laser sensors look for reflected light at
specific frequencies

rocks eated by the sun. reflections off of pools of water or streams can
also distract them.



You seem not to understand the difference between IR and laser sensors

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Keith W" wrote:

:"ray o'hara" wrote in message
...
:
: laser guided weapons gave a tendency to attack the sun. you only see the
: good ones on tv, not all the misses.
:
:Utter ********, the laser sensors look for reflected light at
:specific frequencies

Ray is, as usual, being an idiot. Not only reflected light at
specific frequencies, but with a specific code.

: rocks eated by the sun. reflections off of pools of water or streams can
: also distract them.
:
:You seem not to understand the difference between IR and laser sensors

He's also the better part of a century behind when it comes to IR,
since IIR weapons (what he seems to be referring to) have very little
problem with practically everything he mentions.

He apparently thinks laser weapons home on heat. Hell, even IR strike
weapons don't do that!

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson