asymetric warfare

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .
I think there are two issues here. The first is when the sensor is
attached to the weapon, as it is in a sensor in a missile. Here,
there is no sensor/shooter cycle, unless you choose to have a human
involved in the decision to fire.

That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous
combat
systems. The closest thing we have to that in service are the intelligent
antiarmor submunitions, which are already in service in cluter munitions
to
include WCMD dispensers, and will soon be available as a warhead option
for
the Army's ATACMS missiles. But they still require a sensor in the loop,
because you can't just fire them "in that direction, more or less", and
hit
anything--you have to have a pretty narrow determination of where the
target
is right at the time the weapon arrives.

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).

Now if you want to send a flock of
CM's out and about to go on a hunter-killer mission, you have some real
problems to confront, like: (a) How do you prevent fratricide or targeting
of the local version of the Sanford garbage truck (remember that not every
enemy is going to be able to discount collateral damage like the
insurgents
we are no facing in Iraq do)?

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.

(b) Are you going to send it in low, where it
MIGHT have a chance at surviving, but its field of view is extremely
limited, so it is that much more likely to not find any target to hit, but
which also requires oodles of (very accurate, and likely unavailable to
most
potential foes) digital topographic data to be uploaded and a complex
navigation system) or up high where the view is better, but also where it
becomes easy meat for the layers of Patriots and Avengers fielded by the
resident duckhunters, along with any covering Aegis controlled Standards
in
the littoral zone, and the ubiquitous F-15/F-22 CAP? and,

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.

(c) Development of
a reliable, compact, onboard sensor suite that provides enough resolution
to
find likely targets, and a darned intelligent software package to handle
target discrimination (from background clutter, earlier posited garbage
truck, etc.), and can also recognize an entire range of potential targets
and select the one you would want hit from amongst all of them.

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%.

Sorry, but I
don't see ANY potential foes we might face in your near term overcoming
one,
much less all, of those hurdles, and I am sure I have missed a few more.
[snip]

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).

"Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .
I think there are two issues here. The first is when the sensor is
attached to the weapon, as it is in a sensor in a missile. Here,
there is no sensor/shooter cycle, unless you choose to have a human
involved in the decision to fire.

That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous
combat
systems. The closest thing we have to that in service are the
intelligent
antiarmor submunitions, which are already in service in cluter munitions
to
include WCMD dispensers, and will soon be available as a warhead option
for
the Army's ATACMS missiles. But they still require a sensor in the loop,
because you can't just fire them "in that direction, more or less", and
hit
anything--you have to have a pretty narrow determination of where the
target
is right at the time the weapon arrives.

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.


Now if you want to send a flock of
CM's out and about to go on a hunter-killer mission, you have some real
problems to confront, like: (a) How do you prevent fratricide or
targeting
of the local version of the Sanford garbage truck (remember that not
every
enemy is going to be able to discount collateral damage like the
insurgents
we are no facing in Iraq do)?

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).


(b) Are you going to send it in low, where it
MIGHT have a chance at surviving, but its field of view is extremely
limited, so it is that much more likely to not find any target to hit,
but
which also requires oodles of (very accurate, and likely unavailable to
most
potential foes) digital topographic data to be uploaded and a complex
navigation system) or up high where the view is better, but also where
it
becomes easy meat for the layers of Patriots and Avengers fielded by the
resident duckhunters, along with any covering Aegis controlled Standards
in
the littoral zone, and the ubiquitous F-15/F-22 CAP? and,

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. 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. 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. Finally, we have
a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers
and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS. 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.


(c) Development of
a reliable, compact, onboard sensor suite that provides enough
resolution
to
find likely targets, and a darned intelligent software package to handle
target discrimination (from background clutter, earlier posited garbage
truck, etc.), and can also recognize an entire range of potential
targets
and select the one you would want hit from amongst all of them.

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.


Sorry, but I
don't see ANY potential foes we might face in your near term overcoming
one,
much less all, of those hurdles, and I am sure I have missed a few more.
[snip]

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.

Brooks

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:22:34 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

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 problems listed above are information-processing problems, that
is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to
solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really
competent programms can be many times more productive than how
software is traditionally written. I've worked as a programmer for
defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe
me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was
written right, it could probably be done with several orders of
magnitude more efficiency.

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).

Most ground vehicles radiate visible lightr, at least during
daytime. At light they radiate IR, which can bre picked up with
similar sensors.

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.

Wrong. The complexity is in the *software*. CM hardware can be --
and historically has been -- put together by unskilled slave labour
in squalid conditions.

They will also be expensive--the R&D effort is still required,

Yes. But once software has been written once (and we're talking
millions not billions of dollars) it can be duplicated at zero cost.

since what has been postulated is essentially an autonomous attack system
that does not currently exist even in the US. 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.

Do you have actual numbers here?

Finally, we have
a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers
and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS.

It would be quite easy for an attack by lots of cruise missiles to
overload the defences at a point.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:22:34 GMT, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

snip

since what has been postulated is essentially an autonomous attack system
that does not currently exist even in the US. 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.

Do you have actual numbers here?

Six firing batteries per Patriot battalion, with eight launchers per
battery, equals 48 launchers per battalion. Each launcher has 4 rounds
onboard, so you are talking 192 missiles loaded out and ready to fire--not
sure what the ABL is, but safely assume at least two rounds per tube in the
battery/BN trains structure, so we are looking at what, another 384 rounds
readily available? So total Pats equals about 576 rounds for a single
battalion? Then you have the Avengers, with 36 Avengers in each corps level
ADA Avenger battalion, each with 8 tubes uploaded, so just taking into
account their initial upload you are talking 288 missiles without bothering
to consider their ABL in the trains. But that's not all, folks--each
division has its own ADA battalion, with another 24 Avengers, 24 BSF-V's,
and 40 MANPADS (or a heavy division), so again minus the ammo in the trains,
you have another 328 Stingers there. So your nominal corps force is going to
have somewhere in the neighborhood of beween 576 and 1,100 Patriots covering
it, another thousand plus Stingers (conservative estimate). Are you
beginning to understand why trying to out-tech the US is an unwise move if
you are really interested in asymetric warfare?

Brooks

ess (phil hunt) wrote:
The problems listed above are information-processing problems, that
is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to
solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really
competent programms can be many times more productive than how
software is traditionally written.

The issue isn't programmers Phil. The issue the massive amounts of
R&D to develop the information needed to specify the sensor that the
programmers will process the output of. The issue is the massive
amount of R&D needed to develop the algorithms the programmers will
implement to analyze the output of the sensor. The issue is the
thousands of hours of R&D needed to develop the database that the
software will use to compare the output of the sensor with...

Writing the software is but one small piece (howsoever important) of a
much larger and more complex effort.

I've worked as a programmer for defense contractors (and for other large
organisations), and believe me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency.
if the software was written right, it could probably be done with several orders
of magnitude more efficiency.

You could have the tightest, fastest, most efficient analysis code in
the world... But it's all meaningless without the other things that go
into making a targeting system. What you have is the typical myopia
of the programmer.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:17:34 GMT, Derek Lyons wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
The problems listed above are information-processing problems, that
is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to
solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really
competent programms can be many times more productive than how
software is traditionally written.

The issue isn't programmers Phil. The issue the massive amounts of
R&D to develop the information needed to specify the sensor that the
programmers will process the output of.

The sensors needed are visual and IR imaging. It doesn't require a
massive R&D program to determine that, or to decide which
combinations of number of pixels and widths of field of view are
appropriate.

The issue is the massive
amount of R&D needed to develop the algorithms the programmers will
implement to analyze the output of the sensor.

Do you know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that
developing algorithms is what programmers do.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:17:34 GMT, Derek Lyons wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
The problems listed above are information-processing problems, that
is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to
solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really
competent programms can be many times more productive than how
software is traditionally written.

The issue isn't programmers Phil. The issue the massive amounts of
R&D to develop the information needed to specify the sensor that the
programmers will process the output of.

The sensors needed are visual and IR imaging. It doesn't require a
massive R&D program to determine that, or to decide which
combinations of number of pixels and widths of field of view are
appropriate.

Ah, another problem handwaved away. You not only lack a clue, you are
aggressive in avoiding obtaining one.

The issue is the massive
amount of R&D needed to develop the algorithms the programmers will
implement to analyze the output of the sensor.

Do you know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that
developing algorithms is what programmers do.

Do *you* know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that
developing the algorithm and implementing the same are two different,
howsoever intertwined, processes.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Derek Lyons wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
[...]
The issue isn't programmers Phil. The issue the massive amounts of
R&D to develop the information needed to specify the sensor that the
programmers will process the output of.

The sensors needed are visual and IR imaging. It doesn't require a
massive R&D program to determine that, or to decide which
combinations of number of pixels and widths of field of view are
appropriate.

Ah, another problem handwaved away. You not only lack a clue, you are
aggressive in avoiding obtaining one.

Hmm.

I've done several iterations of this problem,
though not with systems that went to full scale
development or production.

I believe that for suitably moderated operational
requirements, the problem can be much simpler than I
believe Derek thinks it is.

I belive that Phil is grossly underestimating the
real requirements, even for those suitably moderated
operational requirements.

There is a fair amount of open source material on
various small guided weapon R&D and proposals.
Unless those were all wrong, it can be a lot simpler
than current 'standard' weapons programs.

But few of those have progressed to production.
The new Marines/Navy Spike missile is one
exception, and to some degree is the exception
that probably proves the rule. Their R&D budget
essentially was hidden in the slush funds at China Lake
for a couple of years, and the missile itself is estimated
to cost at most a few thousand dollars.


-george william herbert

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:45:56 GMT, Derek Lyons wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
The issue is the massive
amount of R&D needed to develop the algorithms the programmers will
implement to analyze the output of the sensor.

Do you know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that
developing algorithms is what programmers do.

Do *you* know anything about programming?

I've already told you, it's my profession. Now, are you going to
anwser my question: have you every done any programming, and if so,
how much and in what languages?

Failure to answer will be considered as evidence of trolldom.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:17:34 GMT, Derek Lyons wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
The problems listed above are information-processing problems, that
is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to
solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really
competent programms can be many times more productive than how
software is traditionally written.

The issue isn't programmers Phil. The issue the massive amounts of
R&D to develop the information needed to specify the sensor that the
programmers will process the output of.

The sensors needed are visual and IR imaging. It doesn't require a
massive R&D program to determine that, or to decide which
combinations of number of pixels and widths of field of view are
appropriate.

It doess, however, require a massive R&D program to be able to
identify the target in the image - if you're lucky enough to have the
target in the Foeld of View of the sensor in the first place.
Recognizing the shape of, say, a vehicle, from an arbitrary distance
and aspect angle, even without the complications of camouflage, smoke,
or decoys, is far more difficulet than you are imagining.
You aren't even beginnig to consider th promlems involved with, say,
telling an Armored Personnel Carrier from a Dumpster, or an Atesian
Well Drilling Rig from a missile TEL.

The issue is the massive
amount of R&D needed to develop the algorithms the programmers will
implement to analyze the output of the sensor.

Do you know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that
developing algorithms is what programmers do.

Oddly enough - I do. In fact, I've done developmnet work on Image
recognition for about 15 years out of a 25 year career as a Programmer
and Project Manager, much of it for just the purpose you describe.
Derek has far more of an understanding of the problem than you do.
It's actually easier to do what seem to be very difficult things -
like taking an image of a car's license plate as it travels on a
highway /2 mile away, than it is to identify the vehicle itself.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster