|
| 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 |
|
|
|
#2
December 21st 03, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#3
December 22nd 03, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:21:49 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:  o you know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that:developing algorithms is what programmers do. No, IMPLEMENTING algorithms is what programmers do (and often without understanding of what they are implementing). DEVELOPING algorithms is what software and systems engineers do. "software engineer" and "programmer" are different words for the same job. -- "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).
|
|
#4
December 19th 03, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
phil hunt wrote: 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. What competing method is there except for Open Source? -bertil- -- "It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file."
|
|
#5
December 20th 03, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19 Dec 2003 15:38:09 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote:
In article , phil hunt wrote: 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. What competing method is there except for Open Source? Open source -- or rather, using some of the ideas from how OSS projects are btypically run -- is certainly useful. Employing the best people (the top 10% of programmers are probably 10 times more productive than the average, and 100 times more productive than the bottom 10%) is important, as is encouraging debate (in a non-threatening atmosphere) as to what can be done better. Extreme Programming has some very good ideas, as do other Agile techniques. Collaborative systems for discussing evolving software projects -- mailing lists, wikis, etc -- are good. Usingn the right programming tools is important, for example the right lasnguasge or (more likely) set of languages. On which lanugages to use, Paul Graham's essays on language design, and the way Lisp makes it easy for you to in effect write your own specialised language for the job in hand, are apposite. Concentration on software quality involves lack of caring about other criteria, so forcing employees to wear strangulation devices, or unnecessarily attending work at particular hours, are counterproductive in themselves as well as being symptomatic of wider PHB-ism. -- "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).
|
|
#6
December 21st 03, 11:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
December 22nd 03, 08:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message news  ess (phil hunt) wrote: :Usingn the right rogramming tools is important, for example the right lasnguasge or more likely) set of languages. On which lanugages to use, Paul:Graham's essays on language design, and the way Lisp makes it easy :for you to in effect write your own specialised language for the job :in hand, are apposite. Again, this is wonderful until someone has to enhance or maintain the result. EVERY effort written in a 'one-off' special purpose language? Ugh! He wants to use lisp for real time software ! Yikes :Concentration on software quality involves lack of caring about  ther criteria, so forcing employees to wear strangulation devices,r unnecessarily attending work at particular hours, are:counterproductive in themselves as well as being symptomatic of :wider PHB-ism. I don't know how to break it do you, but the last time I wore a tie was around a year ago (I was briefing an O-6 - even so, the tie was a mistake, which I didn't repeat the last time I went to brief one). I generally wear polo shirts to work (and pretty much work when I feel like it - the problems which you find so easy seem to consume an awful lot of time before they are acceptably solved, so they let me work as many hours as I want (up to a limit where the company starts worrying about burn-out)). As a software engineer I have to say this joker seems to know nothing about the business. The only people wh wear ties in our company are the accountants. Keith
|
|
#8
December 22nd 03, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
phil hunt wrote: On 19 Dec 2003 15:38:09 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote: In article , phil hunt wrote: 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. What competing method is there except for Open Source? Open source -- or rather, using some of the ideas from how OSS projects are btypically run -- is certainly useful. The reason for my question is that I don't think Open Source is very applicable the type of 'sharp edge' military systems you are talking about here. It is very applicable to making programs that help you make sure that every regiment gets the correct number of socks and ammo, but not to making program that handles guidance and target discrimination routines. Especially not if you expect your capabilities to remain anything like secret. (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse -bertil- -- "It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file."
|
|
#9
December 23rd 03, 01:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 22 Dec 2003 17:41:26 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote:
In article , phil hunt wrote: On 19 Dec 2003 15:38:09 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote: In article , phil hunt wrote: 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. What competing method is there except for Open Source? Open source -- or rather, using some of the ideas from how OSS projects are btypically run -- is certainly useful. The reason for my question is that I don't think Open Source is very applicable the type of 'sharp edge' military systems you are talking about here. It is very applicable to making programs that help you make sure that every regiment gets the correct number of socks and ammo, but not to making program that handles guidance and target discrimination routines. Especially not if you expect your capabilities to remain anything like secret. Certainly. Using open source software such as operating systems, IP stacks, image processing libraries, encryption libraries and the like would probably be appropriate, and contributing any changes back to those codebases might well be a good idea. The really secret stuff is much less likely to be made available. I also had in mind OSS *techniques*, that is using some of the procedures in infrastructure that OSS projects often used, to do closed-source development. Things like Sourceforge, mailing lists, CVS, packaging as tarballs, etc. -- "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).
|
|
#10
December 19th 03, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message . .. 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 US has a number of programs all employing various degrees of technological innovation. While money has been allocated into the research of new UAV/UCAV's, obviously that is a relatively small investment (when compared to the total budget). Even with those programs, human involvement seems to be essential in the operation of the system and targeting of the enemy. Obviously the program selection, funding, and priority given differs from country to country. I'm just stating that another country could take a position on this matter that might differ from that of the US. 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. 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. 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)? 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. 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. Finally, we have a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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). 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. 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. Brooks
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |
Hybrid Mode
