asymetric warfare

"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 *

John Schilling wrote:
[...]
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.

Pushback. While you are generally correct... I think that some of
the enthusiasts here are not paying enough attention either to
details or to the big picture... I believe that there are some
unconventional and asymmetrical things which could be done which
would severely hamper western style warfare.

One of the things which could be done looks a lot like one of the
things under discussion here. There are many others, and the
overall strategy of defense by and only by massive cheap cruise
missiles is a grand scale loser, but as part of doing a lot of
other things it might well be a viable strategy component.


-george william herbert

(George William Herbert) writes:

John Schilling wrote:
[...]
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.

Pushback. While you are generally correct... I think that some of
the enthusiasts here are not paying enough attention either to
details or to the big picture... I believe that there are some
unconventional and asymmetrical things which could be done which
would severely hamper western style warfare.

One of the things which could be done looks a lot like one of the
things under discussion here. There are many others, and the
overall strategy of defense by and only by massive cheap cruise
missiles is a grand scale loser, but as part of doing a lot of
other things it might well be a viable strategy component.


Yes, but even there it's important not to get caught up in the
game of winning the last war, designing the optimal force package
and tactical doctrine to defeat the US Military of 2003.

Because, e.g., cruise missile swarms are not going to be effectively
fielded without an extensive period of R&D, testing, procurement,
training, and deployment, which will be noticed and which will mean
you only get to use the cruise missile swarms against a US Military
that has accomodated itself to the idea of being hit by cruise missile
swarms.

So it's not enough to have a cheap guidance package that can distinguish
a tank from a rock, you now have to distinguish a tank from an inflatable
tank decoy. The United States Army of 2003 doesn't use inflatable decoys
because nobody has a precision deep strike capability against it, but if
an adversary changes the latter, the former is going to change as well.

Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.


--
*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 *

grrr. I hate all these crossposts. Are they really necessary?

(John Schilling) wrote in message

Yes, but even there it's important not to get caught up in the
game of winning the last war, designing the optimal force package
and tactical doctrine to defeat the US Military of 2003.

This is definitely true. Defeating the US Military of 2003 would
be one thing. Defeating the US military of the time period that
it took to be able to develop the technology to defeat of the US
military of 2003 would be a different story altogether.

So it's not enough to have a cheap guidance package that can distinguish
a tank from a rock, you now have to distinguish a tank from an inflatable
tank decoy. The United States Army of 2003 doesn't use inflatable decoys
because nobody has a precision deep strike capability against it, but if
an adversary changes the latter, the former is going to change as well.

Actually, I'm willing to bet that by the time that the R&D is done for
the cheap and effective cruise missiles is completed that the US
military
will have trotted out a very effective defense already. In fact, if I
am
not mistaken, they're working on it already.

"Next," Wilson said, "we're going after mortars."

http://www.ausa.org/www/news.nsf/0/0...t&Auto Framed
(THEL shot down a 152mm in the article)

LLNL is working on the 100+ kw solid state laser prototype for HELSTF
as we speak. (http://www.llnl.gov/nif/lst/helstf.html) At that point
it gets cheaper to knock down the cheap but effective cruise missiles
than it does to make them. After all, it's just the cost of the
gasoline
(or kerosene if its a turbine and prolly would be) to power the
laser...

First couple generations I'd expect the lasers to be in dedicated AA
platforms. After that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they
proliferated
into the slot of the AA .50 cal on tanks. assuming they still have
MBTs
around then, of course.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-03k.html

I have my very strong doubts that a chemical laser will make its way
onto the battlefield, at least in an armored vehicle. I can't see
soldiers embracing something that if the tanks get blow open by
artillery
or mines will wipe out a company easy...flourine bad. Very bad.

Will


--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

William Baird wrote:
First couple generations I'd expect the lasers to be in dedicated AA
platforms. After that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they
proliferated
into the slot of the AA .50 cal on tanks. assuming they still have
MBTs
around then, of course.

My prediction is that laser weapons will really take off when a
practical, high efficiency, high repetition rate short pulsed
(nanosecond or less) laser with a reasonable energy per pulse (say about
a joule) is available. By high efficiency, I mean comparable to today's
chemical and solid state CW lasers, around 10% to 30% or better, not the
piddly 1% efficiency we get with solid state lasers operating with
flashlamps.

Why pulsed lasers? Short pulses cause damage to the target through
mechanical means (induced by the violent expansion of the solid density
plasma created by the pulse) rather than thermal. This is two to three
orders of magnitude more efficient at causing structural damage than
direct vaporization. The high repetition rate specified (several
kilohertz or faster) will allow you to blast holes though things quickly
compared to the relatively slow burning of CW lasers.

We still have a way to go to get lasers of this performance, however (or
if we don't, no one is talking about it). At the rate at which laser
technology is advancing, though, it will probably not be too long before
the military has these toys to play with.

Luke

In article , LukeCampbell
wrote:

Why pulsed lasers? Short pulses cause damage to the target through
mechanical means (induced by the violent expansion of the solid
density plasma created by the pulse) rather than thermal. This is
two to three orders of magnitude more efficient at causing structural
damage than direct vaporization. The high repetition rate specified
(several kilohertz or faster) will allow you to blast holes though
things quickly compared to the relatively slow burning of CW lasers.

You also have some problems with ionization of the air in some
conditions, degrading the beam.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:

You also have some problems with ionization of the air in some
conditions, degrading the beam.

For visible or near IR, this is not so much of a problem as with mid IR
(or UV, for that matter). There is an ionization phenomena that can
actually help propagate the laser beam in some conditions. Very intense
light in air can lead to self focusing, and if there was nothing to stop
it, the laser would catastrophically self focus down to a point,
resulting in strong ionization and the total absorption of the beam. It
turns out however that before this occurs, the beam will cause weak
ionization of the air, forming a diverging lense and expanding the beam
again. The beam still has enough power to self focus in normal air,
though, so you go through a sort of leap-frog effect of focus, diverge,
focus, diverge, etc. This overcomes diffractive spreading of the beam,
and some researchers have managed to propagate millijoule, femptosecond
pulses of laser light for several kilometers through the atmosphere
using this method. It is not clear if this would be a good option for
weapons, but it might turn out to be a very effective means of
delivering pulsed laser energy to targets within a few kilometers.

Luke

LukeCampbell wrote in message
My prediction is that laser weapons will really take off when a
practical, high efficiency, high repetition rate short pulsed
(nanosecond or less) laser with a reasonable energy per pulse (say about
a joule) is available.

FWIW, the LLNL solid state laser is a pulsed one. The flash lamps are
supposed to be followed on with LEDs as well.

Ah, here we go:

"The project scientists are also investigating several diode
cooling and packaging techniques for optical pumping using
laser diodes. A 10-bar prototype monolithic diode array is
operational and delivers 300 W at 940 nm. When complete, the
HELSTF laser will deliver 100-kW-to-MW output power under burst
mode for the duration of several seconds."

We still have a way to go to get lasers of this performance, however (or
if we don't, no one is talking about it). At the rate at which laser
technology is advancing, though, it will probably not be too long before
the military has these toys to play with.

The technologies are sufficiently advanced enough that the
Blue Beanies, ahem, USAF are talking about putting a SS-HEL
in the back of Lockheed's Air Force JSF version.

My bet is that within ten years we'll see each branch of the
military with one sort of laser or another as an offensive weapon.

Will

Luke

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

William Baird wrote:
LukeCampbell wrote in message

My prediction is that laser weapons will really take off when a
practical, high efficiency, high repetition rate short pulsed
(nanosecond or less) laser with a reasonable energy per pulse (say about
a joule) is available.


FWIW, the LLNL solid state laser is a pulsed one. The flash lamps are
supposed to be followed on with LEDs as well.

Ah, here we go:

"The project scientists are also investigating several diode
cooling and packaging techniques for optical pumping using
laser diodes. A 10-bar prototype monolithic diode array is
operational and delivers 300 W at 940 nm. When complete, the
HELSTF laser will deliver 100-kW-to-MW output power under burst
mode for the duration of several seconds."

Oh. My reading was that it could operate at full power (about 100 kW
CW) for several seconds, and then had to be shut off to cool. Since I'm
not actually working on the beasty, though, I can't say if my reading is
correct or not.

We still have a way to go to get lasers of this performance, however (or
if we don't, no one is talking about it). At the rate at which laser
technology is advancing, though, it will probably not be too long before
the military has these toys to play with.


The technologies are sufficiently advanced enough that the
Blue Beanies, ahem, USAF are talking about putting a SS-HEL
in the back of Lockheed's Air Force JSF version.

My bet is that within ten years we'll see each branch of the
military with one sort of laser or another as an offensive weapon.

Sounds about right. I would have guessed 10 to 20, myself, but I am
usually a bit conservative.

Luke

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
(George William Herbert) writes:

John Schilling wrote:

Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.

I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
might as well send in F-15s??

Damo - who would much rather read a discussion about cheap(ish) cruise
missiles then trying to defeat the US on the battlefield. This is a science
based group, not fantasy.



--
*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 *