asymetric warfare

"Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..
[snip]
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.

The question you should be asking is just who are these people who have
these sensors, the software, and the associated hardware to build such
weapons? Certainly the Russians and Europeans could do such weapons,
China, India, Israel, South Africa, and at a stretch perhaps some South
American nations 'might' be capable of attempting such weapons. Being
capable of attempting such a project does not imply success nor does it
account for changes in behavior of the major powers (read U.S.) As to
being a decade away, ask the Indians about how easy it is to develop
cruise missiles, fighters or ships. They are credible, who else is?

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.

A presumption you make is that the Patriot is the weapon of choice. It
may be, then again perhaps a van with lot's of generators and an array of
antennae might be the counter measure. Perhaps the counter to the Harpies
are some alternative sensor fuzed shell. Maybe, a newer missile (Patriot
light if you will) that is much 'dumber' and lower performing hence can be
fired in greater numbers is the answer. Your proposition makes sense if
you assume your target (the U.S.) stands still. It doesn't.

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)?

Name the nations producing sensor fuzed munitions. Certainly the list of
nations capable of 'developing' them may be large. But I must reiterate
that deciding to develop a munition is not the same as fielding it.

[snip --- about use of AA missiles and MANPADS against UAV's and the like]

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.

Perhaps, it is largely because UAV's are NOT usually flying low and slow;
we do not always know what and how many such UAV's are shot down and
because for the U.S. at least it has not been a problem that needed
solving.

Just who has used these UAV's against the U.S. and how do you know they
did not get rendered ineffective (jammed, shot down, performance degraded,
control van attacked, etc.)

For what it's worth, U.S. UAV's have been acknowleged to have been shot
down in Iraq and Afghanistan, they probably were shot down in former
Yugoslavia, the Israeli's have probably lost quite a few over Syria and
Lebanon and the Indians and Pakistanians regularly lose UAV's. In my
opinion they do not represent a golden BB, they are simply another tool.

[snip]

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.

It was difficult enough that in GW1 Iraqi's regularly had difficulty
accurately hitting U.S. forces when they did shoot. Easy enough that
though a few SCUDS and their ilk have caused damage, they really haven't
been an effective military weapon except in those cases where they forced
attrition through diverted forces due to political realities (i.e. keep
Israel out of the war.)

If it were easy to hit troops with self-targeting systems don't you think
the U.S. would be doing it already?

---
In principle, yes, such weapons could be developed. That doesn't mean
however that any given country has all the bits and pieces, be it
software, hardware, experience or otherwise. Also the counter to an
asymmetric weapon can easily be just as assymetric.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:30:28 GMT, "Anthony Garcia"
wrote:



If it were easy to hit troops with self-targeting systems don't you think
the U.S. would be doing it already?

I think the hard thing to do is to avoid incidental civilian
casualties with self-targetting systems.

This is probably enough to scrap the idea in the US, which is public
ally committed to the idea of avoiding avoidable harm to
non-combatants. I'm a little bit cynical as to how this works out in
practice, but I do think that most of the high-ranking staff officers
do try to make battle plans that will minimize civilian casualties.
Probably the main difficulty is that battles don't always follow the
battle plans....

How did I get off on that topic? Anyway, I really don't know how well
the idea would work if bystander casualties were not a concern. It
seems to me that we would not actually know until the idea was built
and tested, and we probably would not really know until it was used in
the field. I think that the intimal development of such weapons would
be prohibitively expensive if it were carried out by a government.
It's possible that some private companies might be able to develop
such weapons at a reasonable cost (and a significant risk that they
would not work after being developed), but it's unclear if they would
perceive the market demand for them to justify the cost and the risk.

"Anthony Garcia" wrote in message
. com...
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.

The question you should be asking is just who are these people who have
these sensors, the software, and the associated hardware to build such
weapons?

Or sell components for those weapons...

Certainly the Russians and Europeans could do such weapons,
China, India, Israel, South Africa, and at a stretch perhaps some South
American nations 'might' be capable of attempting such weapons.

Anyone can attempt such weapons (even non-state entities). If you lack local
resources, the question is how easily can you obtain the skills or
technology you lack.

Being
capable of attempting such a project does not imply success nor does it
account for changes in behavior of the major powers (read U.S.)

If someone (foe) fielded such a weapon, I'm sure the "major powers" (the
manufacturers that can sell the counter weapon) would change behavior
(priorities).

Numerous states have or had embarked on chemical warfare and ballistic
missile technology (and not quite "successfully") and that surely impacted
strategic and tactical decision-making.

As to
being a decade away, ask the Indians about how easy it is to develop
cruise missiles, fighters or ships. They are credible, who else is?

Whatever problems they have seem to be quickly resolved when the skill and
technology they lack (or have serious problems with) is acquired from abroad
(for example, jet engines, MBT chassis, etc.)

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.

A presumption you make is that the Patriot is the weapon of choice. It

How many practical (fielded) choices would the US have against Harpy-like
weapon systems (UAV's that autonomously target ground forces)?

may be, then again perhaps a van with lot's of generators and an array of
antennae might be the counter measure.

How so? How would you counter the SMArt shell today?

Perhaps the counter to the Harpies
are some alternative sensor fuzed shell. Maybe, a newer missile (Patriot
light if you will) that is much 'dumber' and lower performing hence can be
fired in greater numbers is the answer. Your proposition makes sense if
you assume your target (the U.S.) stands still. It doesn't.

Developing and deploying a new missile is not something that can be
accomplished in a day. New weapons that autonomously select and destroy
their targets are here, some on the form of artillery shells, UAV's, or
mines. Their sensors work as differently as their delivery method.

Does a fielded system exist to effectively counter such weapons? How do you
counter a Harpy? What about the SMArt? What about an unknown weapon that
shares some properties from both?

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)?

Name the nations producing sensor fuzed munitions. Certainly the list of
nations capable of 'developing' them may be large. But I must reiterate
that deciding to develop a munition is not the same as fielding it.

How "high-tech" is the SMArt (with its sensor) considered, and how many
countries would be denied access to it (in the form of a procurement)?

[snip --- about use of AA missiles and MANPADS against UAV's and the like]

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.

Perhaps, it is largely because UAV's are NOT usually flying low and slow;
we do not always know what and how many such UAV's are shot down and
because for the U.S. at least it has not been a problem that needed
solving.

Which is my point. That a large percentage of UAV's are not lost on their
missions.

Just who has used these UAV's against the U.S. and how do you know they
did not get rendered ineffective (jammed, shot down, performance degraded,
control van attacked, etc.)

I'm not looking at a historical example of a UAV used against the US. I'm
looking at how UAV's in general have fared against AD, and developments in
sensors that can independently identify their target.

For what it's worth, U.S. UAV's have been acknowleged to have been shot
down in Iraq and Afghanistan, they probably were shot down in former
Yugoslavia, the Israeli's have probably lost quite a few over Syria and
Lebanon and the Indians and Pakistanians regularly lose UAV's. In my
opinion they do not represent a golden BB, they are simply another tool.

Agreed. The original poster was however asking if they (UAV's) can be used
in a massive attack. I believe that developments in sensors and UAV
technology certainly indicate that such a weapon can (or will) be
introduced.

[snip]

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.

It was difficult enough that in GW1 Iraqi's regularly had difficulty
accurately hitting U.S. forces when they did shoot.

That is because the Iraqi's used untrained conscripts, and their weapons
used inferior sensors. Why shouldn't such a country use systems with minimal
soldier interaction, with a large range, and with the ability to
autonomously identify and kill its target? This is not so much a "US vs.
Iraq" statement, but rather one that recognizes that some countries cannot
be successful by employing existing convention weapon systems due to the
technological gap that exists between then and their adversary.

Easy enough that
though a few SCUDS and their ilk have caused damage, they really haven't
been an effective military weapon except in those cases where they forced
attrition through diverted forces due to political realities (i.e. keep
Israel out of the war.)

Once again agreed. Which is yet another reason why some nations (that
currently invest resources in ballistic missile technology) could or should
instead invest in the types of weapons discussed.

If it were easy to hit troops with self-targeting systems don't you think
the U.S. would be doing it already?

There are a number of reasons why the US does not use such systems
(tactical, strategic, political, and diplomatic). That however has not
prevented other countries from developing and fielding self-targeting
systems.

---
In principle, yes, such weapons could be developed. That doesn't mean
however that any given country has all the bits and pieces, be it
software, hardware, experience or otherwise. Also the counter to an
asymmetric weapon can easily be just as assymetric.

"Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message
...

"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.

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.


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.

Again, these are not autonomous systems you bring up. 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, (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, (c) Have it retain a
significant degree of survivability in the face of US defensive systems, and
(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.


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)?

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


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.

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.

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).


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.

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).


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?

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, 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.


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).

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.


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.

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

Brooks


Brooks

"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

I think almost everyone is missing the point about assymetric warfare. All
the comments are based on US/NATO type equipment standards, and military
objectives. The whole point of assymetric warfare is that you don't follow
the standards, you go for what you can achieve where you can achieve it with
what you can get. 9/11 was a classic example.

If some one out there is planning on using cruise missiles for example, he
wont build them to Tomahawk standards, he wont select tomahawk like targets
and so on.

Assymetric warfare is about doing the unexpected, with the unexpected by
surprise, that negates the defences and allows success.

If you haven't got the budget of the US, you dont try to emulate them and
expect to win, you have to think out of 'our' box.

Peter

"peter" wrote in message ...
I think almost everyone is missing the point about assymetric warfare. All
the comments are based on US/NATO type equipment standards, and military
objectives. The whole point of assymetric warfare is that you don't follow
the standards, you go for what you can achieve where you can achieve it with
what you can get. 9/11 was a classic example.

If some one out there is planning on using cruise missiles for example, he
wont build them to Tomahawk standards, he wont select tomahawk like targets
and so on.

Assymetric warfare is about doing the unexpected, with the unexpected by
surprise, that negates the defences and allows success.

If you haven't got the budget of the US, you dont try to emulate them and
expect to win, you have to think out of 'our' box.



Brings to mind the VC etc. use of 122mm and 240mm rockets as short
range boosters for oil drums, etc. filled with explosives. The new
variant is the Improvised Explosive Device, in this case the delivery
system comes to you in the form of patrols. Just saw a refernce to
600,000 tons of explosives in Iraq:
"There is approximately 600,000 tons of ordnance out on the ground
throughout the country," said Army Maj. Adam Boyd, of the 1138th Mine,
Explosive and Ordnance Information Coordination Center, "and the enemy
is getting smarter every single day on how to use it."

"peter" wrote:

I think almost everyone is missing the point about assymetric warfare. All
the comments are based on US/NATO type equipment standards, and military
objectives. The whole point of assymetric warfare is that you don't follow
the standards, you go for what you can achieve where you can achieve it with
what you can get. 9/11 was a classic example.

Yep. 9/11 is a demonstration of what happens when you *don't* have a
strategy or an operations plan. You raise a great sound and fury, but
accomplish nothing.

Assymetric warfare is about doing the unexpected, with the unexpected by
surprise, that negates the defences and allows success.

That works when the asymmetries as small. (For instance the Japanese
never expected our submarine campaign.) It fails when the asymmetries
are large as there is not military way to overcome them.

If you haven't got the budget of the US, you dont try to emulate them and
expect to win, you have to think out of 'our' box.

If you haven't got the budget of the US, you are not going to win
many, if any, victories of sufficient size. Your goal instead must be
to win on the political front, and there the 2nd-2rd tier nations have
the advantage.

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.

"peter" writes:

I think almost everyone is missing the point about assymetric warfare. All
the comments are based on US/NATO type equipment standards, and military
objectives. The whole point of assymetric warfare is that you don't follow
the standards, you go for what you can achieve where you can achieve it with
what you can get. 9/11 was a classic example.

If some one out there is planning on using cruise missiles for example, he
wont build them to Tomahawk standards, he wont select tomahawk like targets
and so on.

Assymetric warfare is about doing the unexpected, with the unexpected by
surprise, that negates the defences and allows success.

If you haven't got the budget of the US, you dont try to emulate them and
expect to win, you have to think out of 'our' box.


Aren't you forgetting something? In addition to Thinking Outside The
Box, don't they have to implement a Paradigm Shift or something like
that?

You're about ten years too late to pat yourself on the back for dispensing
privileged knowledge to the masses on this one. Everyone here gets the
point about Asymmetric Warfare. We understand it, really.

We are trying to explain to you that Asymmetric Warfare is not a Magic
Word that wipes away some very hard problems in weapons technology or
military science. There are *reasons* the US/NATO do things the way
they do, and if it is't the most efficient way possible it does at
least allow the concentration of enormous resources on those Very Hard
problems with the result that the US/NATO and company have some Very
Impressive capabilities.

Invoking the Asymmetric Warfare buzzword does nothing to counter those
capabilities. It isn't clear that they even *can* be countered, save
in kind, but if it is possible it will involve a whole slew of very
hard problems in its own right, and that the amateurish solutions
posited here are not going to cut it.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"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