Defense against UAV's

Keith W wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

Keith W wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Jack Linthicum wrote:

Almost all the arguments one sees here are based on the fact that UAVs
are dumb and if you can take the comms out, you are fine. I am not
sure that will hold for long, especially if the UAVs are used against
ships on open sea, in fair weather, in 'kill every warship you see'
mode - which all makes the autonomous decision making of the UAV so
much easier.

That of course also makes spoofing and the use of decoys much easier
and makes the user rather unpopular with any other seafarers. It'd
be something of a pity if your UAV's decided to attack the local
fishing fleet instead of the USN battle group. Given the number of
offshore
rigs and support ships as well as tankers in the Persian Gulf such
indiscriminate weapons would seem rather unattractive to the Iranians
as an example.


If you are using video imaging (backed up by some other, e.g.
IR/passive EM sensors),
I suspect it is a graduate student's exercise in image recognition to
distinguish a warship (esp. aircraft carrier) from an oil
rig/tanker/finshing ship. Especially if you are flying slow.

As a software engineer I'd suggest you are wrong. If such recognition
is so easy how did an Argentine aircrew drop bombs on an
American tanker in 1982 believing it was a RN Carrier ?

A UAV with realtime video image recognition and IR sensors is unlikely
to be especially cheap

Chaff and flares might foil simple radar/IR seekers, but I can't see
how would they defeat video imaging sensor (+good software behind it).



Design for minimal communication and bandwidth needs
(just for higher level commands/coordination) - much tougher to detect
and jam.


It is easy to imagine a swarm of UAVs used as very sheap relatively
slow (200km/h) flying cruise missiles with small warheads, designed to
attack radars and similar on-ship targets that can be seriously damaged
with a small warhead (spray a shotgun of darts with wavy aluminium
tails into that phased array and see what it can do afterwards).


200 km/hr UAV's are going to be rather vulnerable to all forms
of active defence including point defence missiles like RAM
and to CIWS.
Yes. That's why you want them to be really cheap and use swarming.

With real time image recognition systens cheap will be quite a trick.

On
the other hand RAM is IR homing and the IR signature of a 100hp piston
engine is negligible compared to the IR signature of a rocket/jet
engine of the current antiship missiles.


But not small enough to be invisible

Phalanx (or other gun-based CIWS) should be effective, but has rather
short range (and not THAT much reloads, if you are dealing with a huge
swarm). I suspect it is also looking at targets with much higher radar
signature and very different characteristics.


Thats just software and rather easier to do than deciding if
that 1000 ft long ship is a carrier or VLCC

The CIWS mounts look rather distinctly and will obviously be among the
targeted areas of the ship. You don't need that much of a warhead to
put CIWS radar ot of commission - so perhaps an UAV with 200kg warhead
can actually carry 8-12 short range missiles designed for homing on
CIWS radar and launch them while being out of range of CIWS.


Earth Calling Planet Esteban - a UAV with 200kg warhead and
8-12 sub missiles will be neither small nor cheap.


Another possiblity is to actually fly high (say 5-8km) so that the UAV
will have to be attacked by missiles and/or aircraft, not CIWS guns,
and drop (homing) submunition from there, gravity doing the delivery
work. You will want to make these UAVs stealthy, to make the locking of
the missile seeker real difficulty (and postpone finding the UAVs as
much as possible).

There is a tradeoff between sophistication and cost (and reliability,

And you are now propsing sophisticated, costly and probably unreliable.


simple systems are easier to debug/design correctly). However, a
country like China/India or even Iran should be able to mass produce
good enough UAVs for peanuts (i.e be able to field thousands of them).
The key term being 'good enough', not 'super duper, all weather, high
reliability and long service life'.

But with real time image recognition, organic SEAD and large warheads

DUH !

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 =----

I think you have misssed one vital point. The Iranians may not aim to
sink a US battlegroup, they may simply want to close the straights of
Hormuz. For this purpose the motto would be, if it floats and moves
sink it.

One of the main characteristics of asymmetric warfare is that military
forces are rarely attacked. "The services are the safest place to be!".
No, suicide bombers go into restaurants and target civilians, not the
Israeli military. One can argue here about the "Geneva Convention".
Lets face it, in modern conditions the GC is a dead duck

BTW - The Iraqis are taking most of the casualties NOT US or British
forces.

wrote in message
oups.com...



I think you have misssed one vital point. The Iranians may not aim to
sink a US battlegroup, they may simply want to close the straights of
Hormuz. For this purpose the motto would be, if it floats and moves
sink it.


In which case they would use mines, ships are more easily sunk by
letting water in the bottom than by letting air in to the top. Mines
really are cheap and effective weapons.

One of the main characteristics of asymmetric warfare is that military
forces are rarely attacked. "The services are the safest place to be!".


Note that the Iranians are as dependent on free traffic movement through
the straits as everyone else.

No, suicide bombers go into restaurants and target civilians, not the
Israeli military. One can argue here about the "Geneva Convention".
Lets face it, in modern conditions the GC is a dead duck

BTW - The Iraqis are taking most of the casualties NOT US or British
forces.



All of which while true is irrelevant to the question at hand.

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 =----

In which case they would use mines, ships are more easily sunk by
letting water in the bottom than by letting air in to the top. Mines
really are cheap and effective weapons.

Not necesarily. You have to lay mines. The US could blow the ship out
of the water. UAVs are mobile. You can launch them from deep inside
Iran. Also mines being static can be swept. A mobile mine (a USB) would
be quite a threat.

Note that the Iranians are as dependent on free traffic movement through
the straits as everyone else.

True, but

1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.

2) They will time the passage and routes of their own vessels so that
they don't get attacked.

If deterrence really did work defense policy would be a lot simpler.

wrote in message
ups.com...

In which case they would use mines, ships are more easily sunk by
letting water in the bottom than by letting air in to the top. Mines
really are cheap and effective weapons.

Not necesarily. You have to lay mines.

Easily done by anything from a traditional dhow to a helicopter

The US could blow the ship out
of the water.

They'd have to know you were laying mines. The straits of Hormuz are passed
by dozens of Iranian vessels every day (and night). Covert mine laying
is old hat.


UAVs are mobile. You can launch them from deep inside
Iran. Also mines being static can be swept.

Not a simple task, especially if the minesweepers are subject to attack

A mobile mine (a USB) would
be quite a threat.


Floating mines have existed for many decades


Note that the Iranians are as dependent on free traffic movement through
the straits as everyone else.

True, but

1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.


I suspect they will when they run out of money and food

2) They will time the passage and routes of their own vessels so that
they don't get attacked.


And you dont think the USN would interict their ships huh ?


If deterrence really did work defense policy would be a lot simpler.


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 in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.


I suspect they will when they run out of money and food

No evidence of that in the "Iran Iraq" war.

The Iranian form of government (an Islamic theocratic republic) has shown it
has considerable fortitude and public support in times of hardship.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.


I suspect they will when they run out of money and food

No evidence of that in the "Iran Iraq" war.


Actually there was. Depletion of Iranian foreign currency reserves
in the latter stages of the war caused major problems to the
Iranians and was one of the reasons they agreed to a ceasefire.
They were reduced to barter style swops of food for oil by 1987.

You also have to recall that they were able to export oil .
Oil exports ran at around 1.1 million bpd throughout the war with
a brief drop in 1986 following the bombing of Kharg Island.
By early 1987, oil exports were around the level set in by its
OPEC agreements.

The Iranian form of government (an Islamic theocratic republic) has shown
it
has considerable fortitude and public support in times of hardship.


Indeed but the Iran Iraq war was defensive, Iraq had invaded Iran.
A war caused by a belligerent Iranian government may be less
well supported.

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:
wrote in message
ups.com...

In which case they would use mines, ships are more easily sunk by
letting water in the bottom than by letting air in to the top. Mines
really are cheap and effective weapons.

Not necesarily. You have to lay mines.

Easily done by anything from a traditional dhow to a helicopter

The US could blow the ship out
of the water.

They'd have to know you were laying mines. The straits of Hormuz are passed
by dozens of Iranian vessels every day (and night). Covert mine laying
is old hat.


UAVs are mobile. You can launch them from deep inside
Iran. Also mines being static can be swept.

Not a simple task, especially if the minesweepers are subject to attack

A mobile mine (a USB) would
be quite a threat.


Floating mines have existed for many decades


Note that the Iranians are as dependent on free traffic movement through
the straits as everyone else.

True, but

1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.


I suspect they will when they run out of money and food

2) They will time the passage and routes of their own vessels so that
they don't get attacked.


And you dont think the USN would interict their ships huh ?


If deterrence really did work defense policy would be a lot simpler.


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 =----

I think we have some hisory here. During Iran - Iraq Iran did indeed
lay some mines. The US was in a much more difficult position legally
from what would be the case were the US to be a belligenent. "Blow it
out of the water" assumed US belligerent status. The US while "neural"
did sink some minelayers and very nearly became a belligerent on Iraq's
side.

Te USN would be a lot more aggressive with a defined legal position.
The US sank ships but did not mount strikes on Iranian naval facilities.

wrote in message
ups.com...



I think we have some hisory here. During Iran - Iraq Iran did indeed
lay some mines. The US was in a much more difficult position legally
from what would be the case were the US to be a belligenent. "Blow it
out of the water" assumed US belligerent status. The US while "neural"
did sink some minelayers and very nearly became a belligerent on Iraq's
side.

Te USN would be a lot more aggressive with a defined legal position.
The US sank ships but did not mount strikes on Iranian naval facilities.



Covertly laying mines is less likely to attract strikes than overt
attack using drones.

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 =----

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
ups.com...

In which case they would use mines, ships are more easily sunk by
letting water in the bottom than by letting air in to the top. Mines
really are cheap and effective weapons.

Not necesarily. You have to lay mines.

Easily done by anything from a traditional dhow to a helicopter

The US could blow the ship out
of the water.

They'd have to know you were laying mines. The straits of Hormuz are passed
by dozens of Iranian vessels every day (and night). Covert mine laying
is old hat.


UAVs are mobile. You can launch them from deep inside
Iran. Also mines being static can be swept.

Not a simple task, especially if the minesweepers are subject to attack

A mobile mine (a USB) would
be quite a threat.


Floating mines have existed for many decades


Note that the Iranians are as dependent on free traffic movement through
the straits as everyone else.

True, but

1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.


I suspect they will when they run out of money and food

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. High oil prices have
allowed Iran to build up about $40Billion in foreign capital
reserves. As for the hunger factor--according to the FAO,
Iran is a net exporter of food.

http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/i...so3=IRN&subj=4

2) They will time the passage and routes of their own vessels so that
they don't get attacked.


And you dont think the USN would interict their ships huh ?


Probably---but would they stop Japanese and Chinese ships loaded
with Iranian oil that has already been purchased?

If deterrence really did work defense policy would be a lot simpler.


Keith


Mark Borgerson