asymetric warfare

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:10:41 -0000, "John"
wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in
What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

To deal with the US Army...
Use SUVs with anti-tank rockets and a millimetric radar mounted on the back.
In iraq US gunners opened fire at 5miles. Since the rounds travel at a
mile/second, this would give an SUV 5 seconds to dudge, which would be
simple with guidence from the radar. Meanwhile the top-attack missiles tear
through the thin turret roofs. Buy a few otto-76mm armed tanks with dual use
surface/air to deal with incomming aircraft/missiles/bombs/helicopters and
to rip enemy soldiers to pieces.

And watch them all die horribly. SUV's will be picked up by the
forward screens of the army units, which can shoot them up just
wonderfully-- not only that, but the first thing the U.S. will do is
nail the SUV's from the air. Cluster muntions do horrible things to
lightly armored vehicles.
In addition, some hotsmoke rounds already incorporate anti-radar
chaff. You can't move until the warhead hits-- because if you're
using vehicle mounted radar, that's probably a form of beam rider of
SAH guidence. Both are eminiently jammable.
76mm AA tanks have been developed (although none are in service as
far as I know-- the Italians evidently weren't able to sell them), but
they have the simple problem of being big enough to be killed from far
out side the 76mm range-- you're going to have B2's and B1's dropping
LCAS GPS guided weapons, and all sorts of other wonderful stuff from
quite far out of range, cued in by UAVs which the Air force doesn't
mind losing at all.


To deal with the US Air Force...
Buy old airliners and fit with reloadable missile launchers and modern AA
radar, counter measures, and refueling probe. Take old fighter designs, and
hang them fully fueled and armed from ballons. That'll multiply thier
endurance by a factor of ten at least. Fit search-radar in envelope and have
them patrol your boarder. Network them together and you'll have an end to
surprise US attacks.

And woudl you prefer to do this before, or after we develop the
anti-matter driven beam cannons? integrating things like AA missiles
into a civilian air frame is incredibly complex, and as for dangling
fighters from ballons, that's just silly. Not only that, but they'll
be blinded by ECM, painted by AWACs and killed from a long way off by
fighters.
Networkign is a nice phrase-- how exactly do you intend to do this
against the most technologically advanced power on earth? Note he
specificed mid-range powers, which means mid-range budget. This
concept, even if it would work, would break the bank of the United
States, which means no other nation could even concieve of it.

The most logical plan is to expect to conceede air superiority, and
try for things that deny us air-supremacy. If you can get them, lots
of V/Stols.and very carefully concealed air supply depots.

To deal with the US Navy...
Buy old torpedos and fit to larch home made rockets (see X-prize entries)
with 50-100 mile range. Get the rockets to dump the torpedos within a few
miles of a nimitz carrier groups and you're garanteed to blow up something
*really* expensive!

Getting a torpedo to successfully deploy from a rocket, in working
condition is far, far more difficult-- and no Nimitz class BG is going
to get within 100 miles of your coast until those rocket launchers are
dead, dead, dead.


Alternatively buy the following:
1 million RPG-7s
5 million RPG-7 rounds
10 million AK-74s
1 billion bullets
Distribute evenly through out your population, train them, set up a
Swiss-style monitoring system, and let the Americans invade. Then blow up
everything of value they own the second they let their guard down. They'll
leave in a few months and you can go back to normal.
Expensive-- and begs the question of will the people fight. Still,
probably the most logical solution here. The U.S.'s greatest weakness
has always been long term guerilla conflits.



Alternatively fly a few airliners into american nuclear power stations. The
aftermath of multiple chernobles will destroy America as an effective
strategic power.

1. You won't get mutiple Chernobles. We have somewhat more effective
designs than the russians, taht don't blow up quite as
enthusiastically into steam explosions. In many cases, you probably
won't even fully breach the containment building. You will get some
release of radiation, but not the doomsday amounts you expect.
2. Congratulations. You've just launched a strategic attack on the
United States. We'll see your airliners, and raise you a few nuclear
strikes on major military bases.
Alternately, we'll just go fully to war, decide not to count the
cost, and dig out every soldier above the rank of Lt. and shoot him.
Direct attacks on teh U.S. by any identifiable nation is a big like
walking up to a grizzly bear and smacking him in the nose. Not smart.

Charles Gray wrote:

The most logical plan is to expect to conceede air superiority, and
try for things that deny us air-supremacy. If you can get them, lots
of V/Stols.and very carefully concealed air supply depots.

They'll stay concealed until someone tries to use them.... The
J-STARS picks up the trucks, an intel weenie figures out the
truck/airplane cycle and... Your depot gets a visit from the USAF.

One thing the US is getting good at, is identifying the head, and
cutting it away from the body.

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.

"Charles Gray" wrote

"phil hunt" wrote in
What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

To deal with the US Army...
Use SUVs with anti-tank rockets and a millimetric radar mounted on the
back.
In iraq US gunners opened fire at 5miles. Since the rounds travel at a
mile/second, this would give an SUV 5 seconds to dudge, which would be
simple with guidence from the radar. Meanwhile the top-attack missiles
tear
through the thin turret roofs. Buy a few otto-76mm armed tanks with dual
use
surface/air to deal with incomming aircraft/missiles/bombs/helicopters
and
to rip enemy soldiers to pieces.

And watch them all die horribly. SUV's will be picked up by the
forward screens of the army units, which can shoot them up just
wonderfully-- not only that, but the first thing the U.S. will do is
nail the SUV's from the air. Cluster muntions do horrible things to
lightly armored vehicles.

Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the
think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire
cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs?

In addition, some hotsmoke rounds already incorporate anti-radar
chaff. You can't move until the warhead hits-- because if you're
using vehicle mounted radar, that's probably a form of beam rider of
SAH guidence. Both are eminiently jammable.

I never said the radar was for guidence; it's there so they can see and
dodge incomming tank-rounds and other munitions.. You can use any missilbe
for the SUV, and you can manouver whilst firing. During this period the wire
is being pulled out the tube at 300mps at minimum, a few mps to either side
is not going to break it. There are also fire-and-forget missile systems.

76mm AA tanks have been developed (although none are in service as
far as I know-- the Italians evidently weren't able to sell them), but
they have the simple problem of being big enough to be killed from far
out side the 76mm range-- you're going to have B2's and B1's dropping
LCAS GPS guided weapons, and all sorts of other wonderful stuff from
quite far out of range, cued in by UAVs which the Air force doesn't
mind losing at all.

US army next-gen guided-bombs are essentuially UAVs with 90% explosive
filling. They are big and will show up on radar. At this point the gun turns
and fires at the bomb/missile before it gets close enough to do damage.


To deal with the US Air Force...
Buy old airliners and fit with reloadable missile launchers and modern AA
radar, counter measures, and refueling probe. Take old fighter designs,
and
hang them fully fueled and armed from ballons. That'll multiply thier
endurance by a factor of ten at least. Fit search-radar in envelope and
have
them patrol your boarder. Network them together and you'll have an end to
surprise US attacks.

And woudl you prefer to do this before, or after we develop the
anti-matter driven beam cannons? integrating things like AA missiles
into a civilian air frame is incredibly complex,

Not that complex. As long as the air-frame can take the load and there's
room for the wires it's rather easy. With any boeing of airbus aircraft the
belly is fully accessable and there's plenty of space to add any kind of
load-distribution system you like. Modern phased arrar radar can be mounted
in the same location weather radar is, eith the electronics placed directly
behind the bulkhead in 'first class'.

and as for dangling
fighters from ballons, that's just silly.

It would increase a fighter's patrol endurence from hours into days at
little extra fuel cost. That's not silly. That's *very* useful for a
cash-strapped military.

Not only that, but they'll
be blinded by ECM, painted by AWACs and killed from a long way off by
fighters.

And the ballons die horribly, but the fighters have already dropped away and
are consuming the USAF's attention and running the terrible risk that an
american might die (GASP! HORROR!) before they even cross the boarder. And
what makes you think that things like AWACS will be able to fly in the near
future? Very simple rockets could be built as first stages to older
missilbes, or clusters of older missiles, which could put them in enough
danger that commanders draw them back beyond their useful distance. If
something cannot be used as effectively it's as good as badly damaged.

Even if they slow the USAF down an hour, that's an hour's warning more than
a country without such a system woudl get.

Networkign is a nice phrase-- how exactly do you intend to do this
against the most technologically advanced power on earth?

America's boastful tendencies do not change the laws of physics. Stealth
aircraft do not reflect radar back at the origin radar - but they do
reflect. If you have an array of linked radars the others may well pick up
the reflected radar pulses, even if the origin array does not.

Note he
specificed mid-range powers, which means mid-range budget. This
concept, even if it would work, would break the bank of the United
States, which means no other nation could even concieve of it.

The purchase of a few AWAC systems (minus aircraft) would not break the bank
of most middle-ranking nations. Linking them together is a computer problem.

The most logical plan is to expect to conceede air superiority, and
try for things that deny us air-supremacy. If you can get them, lots
of V/Stols.and very carefully concealed air supply depots.

I would point out that building or buying new VSTOLs is going to be far more
expensive than anything I've said.

To deal with the US Navy...
Buy old torpedos and fit to larch home made rockets (see X-prize entries)
with 50-100 mile range. Get the rockets to dump the torpedos within a few
miles of a nimitz carrier groups and you're garanteed to blow up
something
*really* expensive!

Getting a torpedo to successfully deploy from a rocket, in working
condition is far, far more difficult-- and no Nimitz class BG is going
to get within 100 miles of your coast until those rocket launchers are
dead, dead, dead.

Again, reducing the range of US navy fighters by 200miles is going to be
worth it! Deploy special-forces with the missiles to hunt down all the
US-special-forces they'll send in, and you can severely inconvenience the US
navy. Plus they have to keep supply-ships away by a similar margin. That
would have a devistating impact on the army's ability to fight a sustained
battle.


Alternatively buy the following:
1 million RPG-7s
5 million RPG-7 rounds
10 million AK-74s
1 billion bullets
Distribute evenly through out your population, train them, set up a
Swiss-style monitoring system, and let the Americans invade. Then blow up
everything of value they own the second they let their guard down.
They'll
leave in a few months and you can go back to normal.
Expensive-- and begs the question of will the people fight. Still,
probably the most logical solution here. The U.S.'s greatest weakness
has always been long term guerilla conflits.

By contract, obscenely cheep. Could probably be done for a quarter billion
dollars. In any population you usally get enough people who will fight, and
in war the actual guns and AT weapons will usually fall into their hands.
After that it boils down to tactics. An RPG-7 can disable any tank in the
world with a good side-shot. And massed against the front they can do enough
damage to disable one.

Alternatively fly a few airliners into american nuclear power stations.
The
aftermath of multiple chernobles will destroy America as an effective
strategic power.

1. You won't get mutiple Chernobles. We have somewhat more effective
designs than the russians, taht don't blow up quite as
enthusiastically into steam explosions.

You'd think so wouldn't you? Or at least the government would like you to
think so. Truth is that western reactors have more safety systems than their
russian equivolents, and therefore really are safer. But all that safety
gear counts for very little when it's burnt or blown up, and most of it is
*outside* the reactor building, so it can be accessed if there is a major
incident. At the very least the sudden and violent removal of several
cooling towers would have a disabling effect on power-outout, causing
brown-outs over a large areas and many days.

2. Congratulations. You've just launched a strategic attack on the
United States.

There is no geneva convention that reads, "Thou Shalt Not Attack The United
States." If Sadam had retaliated on US soil they'd have had to just sit
there and take it, because he'd have been well within his rights under
international law. You could try and excecute him for a lot of things but
something like this would not have been one of them. Any other country would
have the same freedom.

There are more strategic targets than nuclear ones. Blowing up the alsakan
pipe-line would have given the american oil-industry a heat attack, and put
the economy in seizers, particularly if accompanied by effective bombings of
oil-tankers whilst in port. Shutting down conventional power stations isn't
terribly difficult either. Do enough of them and the entire US grid will
fail. Since natural gas is pressurised by the national grid, that will fail
as well. And that would be *fun*. ^.^

This is to say nothing of a small numer of lesser terrorist attacks you
could commit, like bombing the NY subway, blowing up petrol tankers and
stations, or shooting government officials. Successful or not any attack
will shut the area down and down the economy and popularity ofthe war down a
peg.

Alternately, we'll just go fully to war, decide not to count the
cost, and dig out every soldier above the rank of Lt. and shoot him.
Direct attacks on teh U.S. by any identifiable nation is a big like
walking up to a grizzly bear and smacking him in the nose. Not smart.

At wich point you get sanctions placed on you by the oil-nations and your
stategic assets over-seas are seized and/or destroyed. In fantasy-land at
any rate. Terrorists doing such things is one thing. But a suposed
democratic country doing them is another. Considder how upset some people
are whe nthe US pretends half a dozen peopel in Guantanimo Bay don't deserve
basic human rights. Now multiple that by a few hundred thousand...

ANTIcarrot.

In article ,
"John" wrote:

Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the
think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire
cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs?

"Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?"

"Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football
field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH
for a while..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:30:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"John" wrote:

Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the
think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire
cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs?

"Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?"

"Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football
field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH
for a while..."

While trying to dodge incoming tank fire, the travel time of which
is less than the average human reaction time; that should be good for
a laugh.

At 2,000 feet I wouldn't want to bet I could move my body out of the
way of a 120mm round APFSDS round while looking directly at the muzzle
and waiting for the flash much less wait for a radar screen to tell me
to move and try to get a 20' vehicle to do it.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

In article ,
Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:30:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

"Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?"

"Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football
field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH
for a while..."

While trying to dodge incoming tank fire, the travel time of which
is less than the average human reaction time; that should be good for
a laugh.

But you're trying to retrict the issue to tank fire *only*, when that's
the smallest issue on the modern battlefield. Well behind artillery,
for sure.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:11:33 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

"Sir, we have incoming cluster bombs. What do we do?"

"Well, we have to get outside of an area about the size of a football
field in five seconds from a dead stop. Drive north at about 200 MPH
for a while..."

While trying to dodge incoming tank fire, the travel time of which
is less than the average human reaction time; that should be good for
a laugh.

But you're trying to retrict the issue to tank fire *only*, when that's
the smallest issue on the modern battlefield. Well behind artillery,
for sure.

He only mentioned cluster bombs and tank fire; both of which it's
pretty ridiculous to claim you can avoid with a radar on a SUV.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

"John" wrote in message
...
"Charles Gray" wrote


Cluster munitions aren't terribly manouverable though. And what makes the
think that the radar put there to let the drivers dodge incoming tank-fire
cannot detect incomming cluster-bombs?


So you detect 200 inbound cluster munitions 3 seconds before they
hit, beyond a quick prayer to the deity of your choice how is that
of material advantage ?

By the way I've yet to see the tank that can outrun an APDS round
so quite what you mean by dodging incoming AT fire is a mystery.


I never said the radar was for guidence; it's there so they can see and
dodge incomming tank-rounds and other munitions..

How do you dodge a round doing greater than Mach 2 ?
I must have missed that detail somewhere

You can use any missilbe
for the SUV, and you can manouver whilst firing. During this period the
wire
is being pulled out the tube at 300mps at minimum, a few mps to either
side
is not going to break it. There are also fire-and-forget missile systems.

76mm AA tanks have been developed (although none are in service as
far as I know-- the Italians evidently weren't able to sell them), but
they have the simple problem of being big enough to be killed from far
out side the 76mm range-- you're going to have B2's and B1's dropping
LCAS GPS guided weapons, and all sorts of other wonderful stuff from
quite far out of range, cued in by UAVs which the Air force doesn't
mind losing at all.

US army next-gen guided-bombs are essentuially UAVs with 90% explosive
filling. They are big and will show up on radar. At this point the gun
turns
and fires at the bomb/missile before it gets close enough to do damage.


How many AFV's have guns with sufficient elevation and
slew range to accomplish this feat ?

Hint its a SHORT list

rest of nonsense snipped

Keith

In message
US army next-gen guided-bombs are essentuially UAVs with 90% explosive
filling. They are big and will show up on radar. At this point the gun turns
and fires at the bomb/missile before it gets close enough to do damage.

Firing at it, and inflicting enough damage to give you a decent chance
of surviving, are very different things. Bombs are a tough target
precisely because they're wrapped in a thick steel case and the filling
is nowadays rather insensitive: you're trying to (a) inflict lethal
damage on a rather small guidance unit, and (b) hoping that the
munition's ballistic course then lands it where it won't harm you or
yours.

It would increase a fighter's patrol endurence from hours into days at
little extra fuel cost. That's not silly. That's *very* useful for a
cash-strapped military.

Who's flying and how do _they_ cope with 96 hours at a time strapped
into a cockpit?

And
what makes you think that things like AWACS will be able to fly in the near
future? Very simple rockets could be built as first stages to older
missilbes, or clusters of older missiles, which could put them in enough
danger that commanders draw them back beyond their useful distance. If
something cannot be used as effectively it's as good as badly damaged.

Why is this only valid for the US side?

Even if they slow the USAF down an hour, that's an hour's warning more than
a country without such a system woudl get.

So what? This might be crucial for El Presidente to empty his safe,
round up a few of his favourite mistresses and catamites, race to the
airport and fly away from the warzone. Doesn't stop the US force from
achieving _its_ aims, particularly if they included "get rid of El
Presidente".

America's boastful tendencies do not change the laws of physics. Stealth
aircraft do not reflect radar back at the origin radar - but they do
reflect. If you have an array of linked radars the others may well pick up
the reflected radar pulses, even if the origin array does not.

Absolutely true. When you get that working reliably and usefully in
practice, patent it and become wealthy.

The purchase of a few AWAC systems (minus aircraft) would not break the bank
of most middle-ranking nations. Linking them together is a computer problem.

They're only useful when flying: AWACS grounded because someone cratered
their runway are just as useless as AWACS you never bought.

Again, reducing the range of US navy fighters by 200miles is going to be
worth it!

That's a standard planning assumption, you're adding nothing. (The
published figure is actually 25 miles, not 100... the sea is large and
even a CVN is small by comparison with missile search ambits)

Plus they have to keep supply-ships away by a similar margin. That
would have a devistating impact on the army's ability to fight a sustained
battle.

This is the standard planning assumption for the USN: it's not healthy
to be in sight of the coast. How do you plan to add to that?

By contract, obscenely cheep. Could probably be done for a quarter billion
dollars. In any population you usally get enough people who will fight, and
in war the actual guns and AT weapons will usually fall into their hands.

Fight for what, is the problem? And how do you cope with the minor issue
of bank raids and other robberies by cheerful criminals using these
Government-issue weapons for unauthorised ends?

After that it boils down to tactics. An RPG-7 can disable any tank in the
world with a good side-shot. And massed against the front they can do enough
damage to disable one.

Trouble is, getting enough shots from the front, or a good flanking
shot, is a lot harder than the armchair theorists seem to think. And the
costs of unsuccessful attacks tend to be high, and the Lessons Learned
are not widely promulgated among the attackers.

You'd think so wouldn't you? Or at least the government would like you to
think so. Truth is that western reactors have more safety systems than their
russian equivolents, and therefore really are safer. But all that safety
gear counts for very little when it's burnt or blown up,

Russian reactors use carbon moderators, that is, very pure coal. US
reactors use water for moderation.

Which burns better?

Also, compare the standards for containment buildings, which you have to
get through before you can burn or blow through anything directly
associated with the reactor core.

At the very least the sudden and violent removal of several
cooling towers would have a disabling effect on power-outout, causing
brown-outs over a large areas and many days.

Quite so, but the same goes for hitting any power station or substation.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"John" wrote:

America's boastful tendencies do not change the laws of physics.

But seemingly yours do.

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.