Defense against UAV's

Jack Linthicum wrote:
wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
wrote:

If the report on the Iran UAV is accurate, the USN is evidently not on
top of this at present. I hope they are working on it, very hard.

Like anti-radiation missiles. Against the launch sites and control
points.

Since only a simple radio signal is needed to control the UAVs (and
then not all of the time - only when they want to instruct them to do
something) that would be very much harder than hitting a high-powered
radar which has to keep transmitting a distinctive signal all of the
time to do its job. And AR missiles could easily be decoyed by lots of
cheap radio transmitters scattered about.

The problem here is that it could be a kind of 'asymmetric warfare', in
that the costs and problems of the defence are potentially far more
costly than those of the attackers.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

The mention was of swarms which implies swarms of signals which then
implies if I have an ECM craft up and I get lots of radiation from one
direction I will send a message to that source. The decoys may work the
second time but not the first or third. The control point will be that,
singular, one command directing all of the UAVs from one spot. How many
generals would you trust if you were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

One thing about swarms. They are capable of communicating with each
other. This is more relevant in fact to what the US can do than what
the Iranians are capable of now. It is also relevant to what China
might do in 7-10 years. In fact a swarm would (like the Internet) have
one communication link. Let us suppose tou were trying to defend
yourself and you decided to fly UAVs in a formation where each plane
was in formation about 500m from its colleagues. 2,000 (hopefully)
cheap aircraft would thereby guard 1,000km of front. If you were to arm
them with LMGs we would have the basis of a system.

The important thing to realize from the software viewpoint is that they
form a network and one controller could control all of them. They need
not in fact take up an inordinate amount of satellite banbwidth.
Remember of course that 2 sides fight every war. The US (and Britain)
is probable capable of developing this within the 7-10 years mentioned
by other contributors.

Such a concept is a direct development of what is going on in civvy
street and the COTS situation. Question - should this be a secret
project or should it be done openly with the perveyors of COTS. It is
very much along the lines of what is hapenning with mobile phones, and
corresponds to a view of what the Internet will become.

Secret projects:-

1) Cost 25% more simply from being secret.
2) Deny themseves Peer Group Review.
3) Frequently deny themselves COTS.

Often the best security may simply be rapid advance not secrecy.

This system will also be a trmendous force multiplier when it comes to
policing a piece of territory. On secrecy cicero a WW2 spy said that if
you were going to hand tomorrow knowing the precise weight and breaking
strain of the rope was not going to help you. I think we whould tell Al
Qaeda the weight and breaking strain. It won't help them.

Andrew Swallow wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
[snip]


I think that a spread spectrum burst type transmission can be
intercepted and given a rough bearing. The money to do this is
miniscule in comparison with making Trident missiles into hand
grenades.

The command post does not move between transmissions. Spread
spectrum/frequency hopping systems return to previous frequencies every
few seconds. Just use several bursts to home in on the transmitter.

Andrew Swallow

Spread is fairly compact when compared with Ultra wideband. Where
spread can occupy megahertz ultra covers gigs, but at the lower power
level, at least under FCC rules. http://www.sss-mag.com/ss.html

Site has an nice simple tutorial on SS, with one exception, the "German
lady scientist" was the actress Hedy Lamarr and she worked it out at a
Hollywood party.

This implies 1000 km of constant wind and cloud.

Not necessarily. They could be further apart in good weather and closer
toghether in bad. As far as wind is concerned COTS provides cheap (1m
or less) GPS. They could stay in formation unless the wind speed
exceeded forward speed. Unlikely.

In which case they would use mines, ships are more easily sunk by
letting water in the bottom than by letting air in to the top. Mines
really are cheap and effective weapons.

Not necesarily. You have to lay mines. The US could blow the ship out
of the water. UAVs are mobile. You can launch them from deep inside
Iran. Also mines being static can be swept. A mobile mine (a USB) would
be quite a threat.

Note that the Iranians are as dependent on free traffic movement through
the straits as everyone else.

True, but

1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.

2) They will time the passage and routes of their own vessels so that
they don't get attacked.

If deterrence really did work defense policy would be a lot simpler.

wrote in message
ups.com...

In which case they would use mines, ships are more easily sunk by
letting water in the bottom than by letting air in to the top. Mines
really are cheap and effective weapons.

Not necesarily. You have to lay mines.

Easily done by anything from a traditional dhow to a helicopter

The US could blow the ship out
of the water.

They'd have to know you were laying mines. The straits of Hormuz are passed
by dozens of Iranian vessels every day (and night). Covert mine laying
is old hat.


UAVs are mobile. You can launch them from deep inside
Iran. Also mines being static can be swept.

Not a simple task, especially if the minesweepers are subject to attack

A mobile mine (a USB) would
be quite a threat.


Floating mines have existed for many decades


Note that the Iranians are as dependent on free traffic movement through
the straits as everyone else.

True, but

1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.


I suspect they will when they run out of money and food

2) They will time the passage and routes of their own vessels so that
they don't get attacked.


And you dont think the USN would interict their ships huh ?


If deterrence really did work defense policy would be a lot simpler.


Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:
This implies 1000 km of constant wind and cloud.

Not necessarily. They could be further apart in good weather and closer
toghether in bad. As far as wind is concerned COTS provides cheap (1m
or less) GPS. They could stay in formation unless the wind speed
exceeded forward speed. Unlikely.

Wind is never homogenous and never from the same direction, especially
over 1000klicks, all the 100 or 500 or whatever comms checks on
position would certainly excite someone on the Elint watch. Those
people are good, by the way, and have a real ear for the rare and
unusual.

Do you have a range (distance) for communications in this manner by the
way?

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.


I suspect they will when they run out of money and food

No evidence of that in the "Iran Iraq" war.

The Iranian form of government (an Islamic theocratic republic) has shown it
has considerable fortitude and public support in times of hardship.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Hint #2: Helos are too slow to deal with even a slow UAV. The
: leading edge of the rotor goes transonic at relatively slow forward
: speeds.
:
:UAVs vary a lot in speed - this article
:http://www.armscontrol.ru/UAV/mirsad1.htm concerning a UAV flight over
:Israel, has some data which shows that some of them fly as slow as 75
:mph. The Swiss Ranger, which seems typical, is quoted as flying at
:between 55 and 130 knots. These would certainly be within the
:capabilities of a helo to catch.

Only if he starts from fairly close to begin with.

: Hint #3: A fighter with a 20mm Vulcan will flat mess up a "small,
: slow UAV" and actually has a radar on board so that he can see it and
: some actual training on how to do an air intercept, neither of which a
: helicopter has.
:
:Always assuming that the radar is capable of getting a lock on the UAV.

No such assumption is necessary. It's not like in the movies.

:If not, his chance of scoring a hit is remote - the speed differential
:is so huge that he could do no more than 'spray and pray'.

Hint #1: What do you think the landing speed of a jet fighter is?

Hint #2: Guns work off the pilot's eyeballs.

Hint #3: If 'speed differential' was such a huge problem, all air
forces would be operating Piper Cubs as penetrating bombers. They
aren't.

: :until
: :something more sophisticated can be developed.
:
: It doesn't take anything "sophisticated" to deal with this threat. If
: it's really small and really slow, just blow past it in the mach and
: let the shockwave trash it.
:
:That might do the trick, as long as you've got air support handy (not
:all warhips are aircraft carriers, or have one on call).
:
:The basic problem is that naval self-defence systems are designed to
:deal with large, fast objects which produce a nice big radar echo. We
:know that they have problems picking up stealth planes - that's the
:whole point of stealth planes, after all - so it is obvious that
:they're going to have a hell of a lot more problems dealing with a very
:much smaller and inherently stealthy object. I don't doubt they will
:eventually find a means of coping with them, but that's probably years
:away - and the threat exists now.

Hint #4: The sky is NOT falling, Chicken Little....

:Note that according to the website above concerning the half-hour
:terrorist flight over Israel "the Israeli army could also do nothing to
:shut down the plane though they observed the entire flight over their
:territory."

And just why was that? It's a preposterous claim. If you can see it
you can kill it.

:The situation is analogous to that posed by the first Russian anti-ship
:missile, the Styx. It was around for years and no-one took much notice
:until one sank an Israeli destroyer in 1967 -

And was totally ineffective only 5 years later, although dozens were
fired, with one even being downed by a 75mm gun.

:then the USN woke up to
:the need for a short-range defence system, and Phalanx was the eventual
:answer.

You have an interesting view of history is all I can say.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

wrote:

:Not necessarily. They could be further apart in good weather and closer
:toghether in bad. As far as wind is concerned COTS provides cheap (1m
r less) GPS.

Hint: Look up the accuracy specifications of GPS.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
1) They might be prepared to hurt themselves to hurt us. In a full
scale war they wont care.


I suspect they will when they run out of money and food

No evidence of that in the "Iran Iraq" war.


Actually there was. Depletion of Iranian foreign currency reserves
in the latter stages of the war caused major problems to the
Iranians and was one of the reasons they agreed to a ceasefire.
They were reduced to barter style swops of food for oil by 1987.

You also have to recall that they were able to export oil .
Oil exports ran at around 1.1 million bpd throughout the war with
a brief drop in 1986 following the bombing of Kharg Island.
By early 1987, oil exports were around the level set in by its
OPEC agreements.

The Iranian form of government (an Islamic theocratic republic) has shown
it
has considerable fortitude and public support in times of hardship.


Indeed but the Iran Iraq war was defensive, Iraq had invaded Iran.
A war caused by a belligerent Iranian government may be less
well supported.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----