asymetric warfare

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:25:54 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous combat
systems.

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.

Falling off a cliff isn't a problem once you've learned how to fly like
Superman.

Trouble is, that prerequisite is harder than you might expect.

Getting a machine to tell a T-72 from a M1A1 from a Leclerc is hard
enough in good conditions

You don't have to. You have to be able to tell whether it's a
vehicle or not, and if it is, is it in an area likely to be occupied
by own forces.

: doing so in the presence of camouflage,
obscurants and when the crew have run out of internal stowage (so have
hung lots of external gear) and maybe stored some spare track plates on
the glacis front ('cause they need the spare plates and they might as
well be extra armour) gets _really_ tricky. Do you err on the side of
"tank-like vehicle, kill!" or "if you're not sure don't attack"?

I'd tend to err towards the former. note that it's a lot easy to
spot a moving vehicle than a stationary one.

Would it not be embarrasing to have a successful armoured raid broken up
by your own missiles?

Indeed. Maybe some form of IFF?

Key problem is that going up against the US loses you your comms and
observation

I doubt that that is true, assuming a competent comms network.

DR is patchy at best unless you've got good inertial guidance systems
(non-trivial). Celestial only works on clear nights

Or during daytime.

- so you're limited
to fighting wars after dark on cloudless nights with no flares in the
sky. LORAN is a radio broadcast and therefore not survivable against a
US-style opponent.

If you have lots of transmitters, many of which are dummy
transmitters, and many of which are only turned on for a short time,
using frequency hopping, it's rather harder to destroy the network.

or up high where the view is better,

It's possible that a mission might require some of the flight to be
at high level and some at low level. I imagine the missiles could
be programmed for a mission by sticking a computer with an Ethernet
cable into a slot on the missile.

This has only been done for twenty years or so in the West, so hardly a
great advance.

I never said it was; it is merely the obvious way to do it.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:43:49 -0500, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Also, since it's not encrypted, it can be spoofed using a local
transmitter

That doesn't logically follow; it's possible to make non-encrypted
data that can't be faked, you just use a digital signature.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:56:18 GMT, Derek Lyons
wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:

You have a rather optimistic view of the capabilities of most nations to
handle development of truly accurate x-y-z topo data sets. And once you do
have that data, you have to have a guidance system that can read it, remain
compact enough to fit in your missile,

You do realise, you can get hard disks small enought otfit in your
hand, that store tens of gigabytes these days?

You do realize the problem isn't *storing* the data,

If you were more literate, you would realise that I was replying to
the the point "remain compact enough to fit in your missile".

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:05:46 GMT, Derek Lyons wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:

DR is a non-starter--again, you don't just hurl a few
missiles in the general direction of the bad guys and say, "Gee, that was
tough--time for a beer!"

Again, why would DR not work?

Because all navigation system accumulate inaccuracy as time-of-flight
increases.

Well, that's obvious. it's how quickly it accumulates innaccuracy
that matters.

Without periodic updates, you are almost ensured of
failing to hit your target.

Unless you have some other method of terminal guidance.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

In article ,
"John" writes:
"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.

5 seconds to dodge... Dodge where, exqctly? In what direction? How
much? To be at the least effective, you're going to have to somehow
get 1 vehicle's size distance away from where you were. Since SUV's
don't move a 1 mile/second...
Oh, and what if the Rascally Americans don't open fire at 5 miles
Becasue there's in a city, or there's intervening terrain, or you're
not a visible target, and engave at a shorter distance? (Which is what
happens. Even 500m (1500') is long range when you're not shooting at,
say, Iraqi tanks in the open desert. In that case, they wouldn't be
engaging SUV-type things with Main Gun rounds. ('cause it would go
through the SUV, and the SUV behind the SUV, and the Tree behing the
SUV behing the SUV, and the School behind the tree - you get the
idea) They'd use either the .50 cal MG on the turret top, or teh .30
cal co-ax. (Don't discount the Coax. It's got a dedicated gunner
with a telescopic sight, a laser rangefinder, and is mounted on a
65-ton tripod. In that case, you don't have 1 round to dodge, but
several dozen.

As for the top-attack missile - when is it going to be fired? Who's
going to guide it? How are they going to maintian guidance for the
20-60 seconds it will take to reach its target while riding in a
moving/evading/exploding SUV?

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.

I'd pay good money to see an F-104/Mirage II/MiG-21 launched from a
balloon.If you could make that one work, Ringling Brothers would give
you a contract But Quick. As for refrobbing old airliners as
long-endurance Patrol Fighter AWACS - well, first, they're easy to
detect, and therefore, neutralize. You can either shoot them down,
or go around them. Being airliners, their ability to move crossrange
will be poor. They'll also need improved airbases, and, as you
mention, tankers. WHen the bases disappear, so does your Air Defence.
(It's always struck me as amusing how many folks seem to think that
all you need to improve aircraft range is a probe. You also need
tankers. Lats of tankers. Lots of big tankers. Consider that in
1982, the RAF used its entire tanker force to get one Vulcan from
Ascention Island to Port Stanley. (Victors, in this case - Not a lot
of tankers, and not a lot of transfer fuel. The same mission could
have been flown, by the U.Ss. with 3 aircraft - 1 B-52, and 2 KC-135s.
The U.S. tanker fleet alone outnumbers most other nations entire Air
Forces.

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!

A _lot_ harder than you think. And the launches will be detected. A
Numitz at flank speed would be a significant distance from the inital
impact area before the Super ASROC you've described gets there. At
which point, the torp, if it survives the impact intact (not a trivial
thing), is goig to have a hard time finding a profitable target.
In the meantime, you've now 1: Revealed your intentions in an
unambiguous manner, and 2: Nicely marked all of your launching
sites. making it damned hard to clain that it wasn't your doing.
Teh end effect, even if you do hit a ship, would be an awful lot like
kicking a nest of Africanized Bees.

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.


In order to do that, you have to have a population that thinks the
country you're leading is worth fighting for. But then, countries
that its citizens thing are worth fighting for tend not to be high
profile targets to the U.S.

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

Well, the onlu problem with _that_ one is that Chyernoble, bas as
it was, didn't depopulate large stretches of the Ukraine or Russia.
U.S. racotrs have far superior containment, and, in fact, are required
to be designed such that they can shrug off a direct hit from a large
airliner.

You are the illegitemate son of Robert S. Macnamara, and I claim my 5.00!

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:41:33 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:12:47 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities,

Launch facility = a land rover and trailer

And how big is this missile? Unless it's very small, the land rover
is now restricted to the roads-- they don't pull heavy loads through
off road territory that easily, and any 150KM+ missile will be a
heavy load, plus the radio and data link equipment.



storage facility = any building will do

for
potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the
same small targets *simultaneously*?

co-ordination = radio

What radio? the U.S. will have every frequency jammed-- we
practically own the radio spectrum. Also, that sort of time on target
tactic takes a lot of training-- and most 3rd world countries don't
have it.
To put it this way, at no point during either GW I or II was the
Iraqi military, much larger, with many hardened facilities, able to
pull off this sort of coordination.

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?

Knowing where they are?

Did the USA knock out all Iraqu tanks at the start of the 2003 or
1991 wars? No, it did not, unlike in your worthless comtemptable
idiot strawman scenario. Did the USA knock out all Serbian tanks in
the Kosovo war? they didn't in the whole war, let alone the first
ten minutes.

WE didn't have to-- but we did knock out the Iraqi Air defense
system, and for something like 60 days in 1991 got to play, "Smash the
army". The tanks couldn't hurt us. The scuds stayed hidden, but that
was because they were doing individual launches. The U.S. won't come
charging in like a blind bull-- it'll hit you from the air, slowly
degrading your command and control abilities. If you want to come to
us, fine-- you have to put the equipoment on the road. Remember the
Highway of Death? If we're invading you, its back to deciding do we
want to go fast, or spend a few weeks destroying your ability to
resist? After plowing all the money into this systems, you certainly
aren't going to have many tanks, infantry worthy of the name, or
airpower, so ALL the U.S. has to do is kill this one system.
Not an effective strategy. Not at all.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:03:48 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
co-ordination = radio

What radio? the U.S. will have every frequency jammed

And then the USA won't be able to use radio either.

-- we
practically own the radio spectrum. Also, that sort of time on target
tactic takes a lot of training-- and most 3rd world countries don't
have it.
To put it this way, at no point during either GW I or II was the
Iraqi military, much larger, with many hardened facilities, able to
pull off this sort of coordination.

They weren't exactly the most competent army the world has ever
seen, were they? When officers are promoted for politcal reliability
instead of competence, that's what you expect to happen.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:15:56 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:43:49 -0500, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Also, since it's not encrypted, it can be spoofed using a local
transmitter

That doesn't logically follow; it's possible to make non-encrypted
data that can't be faked, you just use a digital signature.

If you don't go to spread-spectrum, your radio links will probably be
jammed. (Solution - go to spread spectrum).

Spread spectrum signals will be difficult to separate from noise,
except at very close range, where the total power level is noticable
above the broadband noise.

I'd still rate a radio location system using spread spectrum
transmitters as rather vulnerable, because the transmitters have to
remain in a fixed location for the system to work, and would be prime
targets.

In article ,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...

He then went to a low-tech communications mode, to "beat" the high-tech
intel that the US normally gets when fighting against pretty much anyone
else in the real world, and expected to have 100% effectiveness in
fighting the game. Of course, his low-tech methods (motorcycle couriers
and personal communications) were degraded by the exercise monitors,
like they would be in real life.


Present situation seems to duplicate that low tech communications
mode. So far.

With even *less* effect. The attacks in Iraq show very little - or no -
central command and control. If there was any sort of command structure
left in Iraq, we'd be seeing multiple large attacks, at lightly-defended
targets, with some reasonably serious effects. So far, it's more of a
copycat war, where something works once, a few other folks try it, and
then it stops working because the US changes tactics.

Some of the other results were very much non-real, like sneak attacks
that only succeeded because the one guy sitting at a terminal was
looking something up, and missed the first warnings - something that
couldn't happen in reality, with hundreds of people out there to notice
troop movements.

You are assuming 'troop movements' the present situation is guys
hiding in mosques or behind children ambushing GIs who get out of the
protective zone.

No, the exercise did. In the current situation, there's nothing much
going on besides some fairly random attacks.

The funny thing is that the *real* world results were even more
optimistic than the expected results from the exercise... a fraction of
the deaths and a shorter war.

We expected a war from March to way past December?

No, we expected the actual war to last a few months, and continued
operations to last for years.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

For others, more attack platforms guided by Mk.I eyeballs and armed with box
cutters.

....and not being very effective. The classical "hijack an airplane"
tactic will no longer work with any amount of reliability, if at all.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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