|
| 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 |
|
#211
December 22nd 03, 02:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#212
December 22nd 03, 02:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#213
December 22nd 03, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#214
December 22nd 03, 03:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#215
December 22nd 03, 03:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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.
|
|
#216
December 22nd 03, 03:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
pervect wrote:
:From my POV, the key point that I missed in my earlier post (the one :you just replied to, there have been a bunch since then) is that GPS :is spread spectrum. Which really doesn't buy you much in the way of security. DS-SS merely makes it easier for the receivers to do ranging functions. :Of course this has spawned yet another argument, where I point out :that if you know what the satellites are supposed to be sending, use  f encryption (rather than spread spectrum) would be unlikely to rovide much security. Other people have suggested that "good codes":are harder to break than this. I haven't gotten around yet to ointing out that all you'd have to do given that you would already:have the plaintext because you know what the satellites have to be :sending is to broadcast a signal that would provide a "lookup table". :Then someone else could point out that this would slow the response :time of the GPS system down. Then I could say, yes, but is that :really significant. And the argument could go on for quite some :time.... It's actually easier than this (since figuring out what the plaintext ought to be is NOT as trivial as you make out). Just use DGPS and hope they don't take down your differential station(s). -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney
|
|
#217
December 22nd 03, 03:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#218
December 22nd 03, 03:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#219
December 22nd 03, 03:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#220
December 22nd 03, 06:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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
|
| 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 |
o you know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that
Linear Mode
