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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:33:33 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote: Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option could be used). While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm their anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100? More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by a B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war? Why would all the missiles have to be launched from the same location? LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities, for potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the same small targets *simultaneously*? The infrastructure and technology for that undertaking would be even more cost prohibitive, but just as futile. Even if they were somehow built and tested (extraordinarily unlikely); again, what would stop *all* of these facilities from being taken out in the first 10 seconds of the war? (And keep in mind that if just a couple of the facilities were disrupted it would exponentially decrease the effectiveness of the entire system). These systems would be nearly impossible to conceal, and would be eliminated right off the bat --if not preemptively during their testing phase (since nothing like this has been built, it would have to be tested thoroughly, and that would be impossible to conceal. From there, it wouldn't take long for US intel to deduce what the intent of such a system is, and order it eliminated). Face it, this is a bad idea. Thomas J. Paladino Jr. New York City |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
In article mail-F29439.19342618122003@localhost, Michael Ash wrote:
Is 'brainwashing technology' somehow not in the same realm of fantasy as 'magic fairy dust'? I was under the impression that it was something you only found in bad novels and movies. Fox News? The Sun? ;-) -- I give confidential press briefings. You leak. He's been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets act. -- Irregular verbs, Yes Prime Minister. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
George William Herbert wrote:
The response was "Yes, but now they're working 95% of the time, rather than 55%". As I understand it, one of the things that motivated the invention of integrated circuits was reliability -- of naval electronics and avionics. The systems were coming up against the limits of what one could reliably do with discrete components. Paul |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mike Williams wrote: The last I heard, the projected date for the launch of the Galileo Next Generation Global Navigation Satellite System was some time in 2005, so after that date there could be an alternative to the American GPS. However, anyone who's at war with the US is likely to be also disliked by the Europeans behind Galileo, and might find that they can't get good readings from either system. It doesn't really matter whether the enemy is on good terms with Europe or not. Just because it's a European system doesn't mean the US can't jam it into uselesness as soon as hostilities begin. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
phil hunt wrote: I've worked as a programmer for defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was written right, it could probably be done with several orders of magnitude more efficiency. What competing method is there except for Open Source? -bertil- -- "It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file." |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
phil hunt wrote: Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a picture. It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the target. Have you looked up "Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance" by Zarchan (ISBN 1-56347-254-6) like I recommended? The missile would know (at least approximately - within a few km) were it is, and therefore whether it is over land occupied by its own side. How will the information-gathering to determine the alliegance of each square click be organized? How quickly can this organization get information and collate it? How will that information be sent to the launch sites? How will the launch sites input it into the missile? *How accurate and timely will it be?* Note that at the end of Desert Storm, Swartzkopf designated a spot for ceasefire talks with the Iraqis that he thought was held by the US. But it wasn't. The units that he thought were there were several kilometers away. (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse -bertil- -- "It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file." |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
In article mail-BF72AE.19331618122003@localhost,
Michael Ash wrote: In any case, I fully believe you. My statement was mostly CYA. I don't think that making everybody be a suicide bomber is terribly effective, but I don't know enough to rule it out. Remember that suicide bombings was something the palestinians started with because Israel had countered all their previous methods of attack: Cross border raids, cross border artillery, airplane hijackings, storming embassies, leaving bombs in public places etc etc. Of course, they are trying to make a virtue out of this necessity now. Tell them to wait in a building by the window. When they see Americans, shoot (at) them. As it was, I suppose the high ranks were too busy trying to get out of harm's way with as much cash as possible to put any effort into making life hard on the US Army. More probably most of the grunts were too smart to follow such orders and bugged out the second the Colonel left them. -bertil- -- "It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file." |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
phil hunt wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:09:48 +0100, Michael Ash wrote: Well, don't forget that only a very tiny percentage of any regular army will be composed of people fanatical enough to become suicide bombers. Your four-million strong Elbonian People's Happy Army will turn into a handful of suicide bombers and a whole bunch of deserters if you tried that strategy. Not to say it may not be the best use of that army, but I don't think it would be that effective. Indeed. Developing and caching weapons that allow people to be guerrillas with reduced risk to themselves (such as time-delayed mortars) would seem an obvious thing to do. But there are no ranging shots with such mortars: Its fire for effect from the first round. They'd have trouble hitting a barn, if it was smaller than 10 Downing Street. -bertil- -- "It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an exercise for your kill-file." |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:40:13 -0500, Ray Drouillard wrote:
"pervect" wrote in message Denying the US use of GPS would have a negative impact on US military capability, but it would not eliminate it. Even if the non-encrypted civilian access GPS is turned off, the military system will work fine. Not entirely. Older military GPS receivers use the less precise civilian signal to get a coarse position fix before they lock onto and receive the military signal. If the civilian signal was turned off entirely, these receivers would either take an extremely long time to initialize after being turned on, or would not be able to get a position at all. ljd |
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 |