asymetric warfare

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:02:04 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:



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.


I don't think anyone expected such a collapse-- most serious
predictoins I read expected a fairly easy field war, followed by some
ugly city fighting, as Saddam tried to suck the U.S. into a Berlin
style slugfest.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:17:34 GMT, Derek Lyons wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
The problems listed above are information-processing problems, that
is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to
solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really
competent programms can be many times more productive than how
software is traditionally written.

The issue isn't programmers Phil. The issue the massive amounts of
R&D to develop the information needed to specify the sensor that the
programmers will process the output of.

The sensors needed are visual and IR imaging. It doesn't require a
massive R&D program to determine that, or to decide which
combinations of number of pixels and widths of field of view are
appropriate.

Ah, another problem handwaved away. You not only lack a clue, you are
aggressive in avoiding obtaining one.

The issue is the massive
amount of R&D needed to develop the algorithms the programmers will
implement to analyze the output of the sensor.

Do you know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that
developing algorithms is what programmers do.

Do *you* know anything about programming? If you did, you'd know that
developing the algorithm and implementing the same are two different,
howsoever intertwined, processes.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

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".

If you were more literate, you would realize that you adressed only
half the statement you replied to. Which is typical, as you have a
history in this thread of avoiding or handwaving away the hard parts.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

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.

Given your lapses to date, I don't assume you know anything, as you've
displayed massive ignorance so far.

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

Unless you have some other method of terminal guidance.

ROTFLMAO. First you have to get into the area where terminal guidance
can take over.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

- 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.

No, it's *easy* to destroy the network. Just knock down every antenna
in the nation over 100' tall. *poof* No more LORAN network.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

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?

Recommend you go back to misunderstanding the wierd world of your
mythical
micro-nukes, Jack--this subject is obviously beyond your comprehension
level.

Then we did expect a war to last from onset to at least nine months?
It is still going on you know.

Intelligent individuals with half a clue realized that during the
stabilization/support/reconstruction phase there would be continued
violence. It did not surprise the military--that you were apparently caught
flat-footed implies something a bit different.

Brooks

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

Which need gas and maintenance.

storage facility = any building will do

*goggles* Not even remotely Clyde. Storing fueled & armed cruise
missiles is a dangerous task. Putting them in 'any old building' is a
damn good way to kill half a city... your own.

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

co-ordination = radio

It's not the method of communication that's the hard part. It's
actually gathering all the data (hard), synthesizing it and generating
launch orders (very hard), and then transmitting it to hundreds of
launch locations (hard). All these things you handwave away have
hidden complexities.

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.

They didn't have to kill all the tanks. Instead they went after the
command and control structure, which renders the tanks almost as
useless as if they were scattered across the terrain.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:
My understanding -- and I've heard this from multiple sources -- is
that in defence procurement it's not how good your product is, it's
who you know.

You need new sources.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:
[1] see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

Typical of your logic style this post has nothing to do with the
subject you claim it does. The post deals with him trying to sell his
data to the missile defense guys, not the missile itself to the
shooters. He seems surprised that they are not interested, but like
most armchair generals and wannabe's he seems to think himself smarter
than the professionals.


[2] see
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:...79 %404ax.com

Typical conspiracy ranting that utterly ignores the facts. (It's
telling that he does not come to the groups where the experts are to
be found, but posts only to where his fans are. The one time he
posted to an expert group, and was shown to be wrong, he vanished
never to return.)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Derek Lyons wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
[...]
The issue isn't programmers Phil. The issue the massive amounts of
R&D to develop the information needed to specify the sensor that the
programmers will process the output of.

The sensors needed are visual and IR imaging. It doesn't require a
massive R&D program to determine that, or to decide which
combinations of number of pixels and widths of field of view are
appropriate.

Ah, another problem handwaved away. You not only lack a clue, you are
aggressive in avoiding obtaining one.

Hmm.

I've done several iterations of this problem,
though not with systems that went to full scale
development or production.

I believe that for suitably moderated operational
requirements, the problem can be much simpler than I
believe Derek thinks it is.

I belive that Phil is grossly underestimating the
real requirements, even for those suitably moderated
operational requirements.

There is a fair amount of open source material on
various small guided weapon R&D and proposals.
Unless those were all wrong, it can be a lot simpler
than current 'standard' weapons programs.

But few of those have progressed to production.
The new Marines/Navy Spike missile is one
exception, and to some degree is the exception
that probably proves the rule. Their R&D budget
essentially was hidden in the slush funds at China Lake
for a couple of years, and the missile itself is estimated
to cost at most a few thousand dollars.


-george william herbert