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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
asymetric warfare
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? I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system. Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be made cheaply. LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect). This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target (useful intel for the missile controllers). 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). Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it to give targetting data for artillery. Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could "get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there. -- "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). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. 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? I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system. Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be made cheaply. LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect). This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target (useful intel for the missile controllers). 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). Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it to give targetting data for artillery. Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could "get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there. -- "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). cheap dirty nukes . if you got 'em use 'em |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. 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? I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system. Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be made cheaply. LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect). This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target (useful intel for the missile controllers). This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter cycle, and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive targets. In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if not longer) is remote. 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). Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it to give targetting data for artillery. Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could "get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there. Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense contractors. Brooks |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:15:51 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
"phil hunt" wrote in message ... LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect). This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target (useful intel for the missile controllers). This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter cycle, and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive targets. In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if not longer) is remote. I think there are two issues here. The first is when the sensor is attached to the weapon, as it is in a sensor in a missile. Here, there is no sensor/shooter cycle, unless you choose to have a human involved in the decision to fire. The second is when the sensor is in one place, and the shooter somewhere else; in those situations, what problems have the USA encountered, and how have they gone about solving them? Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could "get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there. Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense contractors. Because they are more technologically advanced. Some technologies, for example high performance jet engines, require a large industrial base to make. The sort of technologies I'm talking about are ones that can potentially be produced a lot more cheaply, for example by adapting mass-produced (but nevertheless highly sophisticated) consumer products. Any medium-sized power should be able to produce embedded computer control systems. -- "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). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:54:46 GMT, Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
(phil hunt) nattered on .org: 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? Orbital laser satellites, preferably mind-control lasers. Crewed by Alien Space Bats, presumably? -- "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). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
phil hunt wrote:
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? Something you don't bring up, but which is very important in being able to analyze your question, is exactly what goal the opponent would have. Would it be to invade the USA (taking the USA as the obvious archetype of the scenario)? Would it be to thwart USA forces engaged in some existing conflict on your soil until the war becomes so unpopular at home that they are forced to withdraw? Would it be to goad them into a conflict to do the same? What is the smaller force trying to accomplish? -- __ Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ / \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE \__/ He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches. -- George Bernard Shaw |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:15:51 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote: "phil hunt" wrote in message ... LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect). This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target (useful intel for the missile controllers). This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter cycle, and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive targets. In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if not longer) is remote. I think there are two issues here. The first is when the sensor is attached to the weapon, as it is in a sensor in a missile. Here, there is no sensor/shooter cycle, unless you choose to have a human involved in the decision to fire. That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous combat systems. The closest thing we have to that in service are the intelligent antiarmor submunitions, which are already in service in cluter munitions to include WCMD dispensers, and will soon be available as a warhead option for the Army's ATACMS missiles. But they still require a sensor in the loop, because you can't just fire them "in that direction, more or less", and hit anything--you have to have a pretty narrow determination of where the target is right at the time the weapon arrives. Now if you want to send a flock of CM's out and about to go on a hunter-killer mission, you have some real problems to confront, like: (a) How do you prevent fratricide or targeting of the local version of the Sanford garbage truck (remember that not every enemy is going to be able to discount collateral damage like the insurgents we are no facing in Iraq do)? (b) Are you going to send it in low, where it MIGHT have a chance at surviving, but its field of view is extremely limited, so it is that much more likely to not find any target to hit, but which also requires oodles of (very accurate, and likely unavailable to most potential foes) digital topographic data to be uploaded and a complex navigation system) or up high where the view is better, but also where it becomes easy meat for the layers of Patriots and Avengers fielded by the resident duckhunters, along with any covering Aegis controlled Standards in the littoral zone, and the ubiquitous F-15/F-22 CAP? and, (c) Development of a reliable, compact, onboard sensor suite that provides enough resolution to find likely targets, and a darned intelligent software package to handle target discrimination (from background clutter, earlier posited garbage truck, etc.), and can also recognize an entire range of potential targets and select the one you would want hit from amongst all of them. Sorry, but I don't see ANY potential foes we might face in your near term overcoming one, much less all, of those hurdles, and I am sure I have missed a few more. The second is when the sensor is in one place, and the shooter somewhere else; in those situations, what problems have the USA encountered, and how have they gone about solving them? Then you have to have a good secure datalink, and as it stands now the only folks that are likely to have those during the near-term are us and our good friends. The best currently fielded US system of this nature is the SLAM-ER, with ATA--think of an extended range Harpoon with an ability to send its sensor images back to either a launch aircraft or another suitable platform, and which responds to that platform's commands to acheive retargeting or to allow more discriminative targeting. IIRC the new Tactical Tomahawk will also offer an inflight retargeting capability. You will note that the current trend in the US, which is the undeniable leader ins such capabilities, is to retain the man-in-the-loop at present, and that will not significantly change during the period you have set forth, so I seriously doubt Underwhatsistan is going to be able to do any better. Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could "get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there. Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense contractors. Because they are more technologically advanced. Some technologies, for example high performance jet engines, require a large industrial base to make. The sort of technologies I'm talking about are ones that can potentially be produced a lot more cheaply, for example by adapting mass-produced (but nevertheless highly sophisticated) consumer products. Any medium-sized power should be able to produce embedded computer control systems. If it was that easy, others would be doing so already--they are not. Heck, look at the Storm Shadow ALCM--a good system, but in no way is it verging on the system brilliance you envision for this asymetric uber-weapon, and Storm Shadow is the best that is offered by our European allies, who are, while generally a bit behind the US power curve in this area, light years ahead of the rest-of-the-world (possible exception of Israel, but if you take the Popeyes we got lynched into buying from them as an example, not too great either). Sorm Shadow/Scalp are already enjoying export success because the rest of the world can't do a better job on their own--the only way they get any capability like what you refer to is by buying from those western industries you rather prematurely wrote off. Brooks |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:18:19 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
phil hunt wrote: 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? Something you don't bring up, but which is very important in being able to analyze your question, is exactly what goal the opponent would have. Would it be to invade the USA (taking the USA as the obvious archetype of the scenario)? Would it be to thwart USA forces engaged in some existing conflict on your soil until the war becomes so unpopular at home that they are forced to withdraw? Would it be to goad them into a conflict to do the same? What is the smaller force trying to accomplish? This is a good question, as what you're trying to do affects what you need to do to do it. Let's consider possible adversaries, and what their aims might be. Iran. - deter US invasion of their country - prevent US or Israeli air raids against their country (LCCMs won't really do this, but other asymetric techniques might be able to) - in the event of US military action, be able to inflict unacceptable losses on US warships in the area - deter Israeli air raids by the ability to strike back against Israeli cities (updated V1 idea; modern V1s would be much more accurate and could e.g. hit targets of opportunity) Saudi Arabia. - same as Iran, really China. - ability to cow other regional powers by superior force - ability to successfully launch a land invasion against North Korea, Russia/Siberia, Kazakhstan, or Vietnam - naval invasion against Taiwan - ability to destroy hostile (either regional power or US) shipping in seas near China - ability to intimidate Japan or other reasonable powers with V1-style weapons India and Pakistan - use against each other; western powers might conceivably join in - V1-type city bombing Algeria or Libya - attack Europe or Israel with V1-type weapons; use threat of the above to prevent the west interferihng in their countries - control Mediterranean South Africa Is not likely to attack anyone, but might want to maintain force dominance compared to a coalition of regional powers against it (e.g. Zimbabwe + Libya + Angola). ZA also has a largish weapons industry with a record of making decent wepaons on a tight budget, so may well manufacture LCCMs for export. Indonesia - war with Australia, whicvh inevitably would have a naval component, so anti-shipping use. Also maybe anti-city use Singapore - to maintain a defense posture of "we're not going to attack anyone, but if you attack us..." Taiwan - aerial bombardment of China. How many people would die if the 3 Gorges Dam was destroyed? South Korea - to deter China. Also for export. Other countries that might develop LCCMs might include Brasil, Argentina, Chile (balance of power against each other), and Thailand and Malaysia (BoP). In all these countries cases, becasue they're fun toys to play with that are cheap. (More formally: because the general staffs and defence ministers of these nations will gain status by being involved in developing what are seen as cutting-edge high technology weapons, and it won't put too big a hole in the defense budget to do it). Russia and Ukraine might develop them for export potential. -- "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). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. 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? I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system. Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be made cheaply. LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect). This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target (useful intel for the missile controllers). Without getting much into the technical end of this discussion (which other posts have already done), it is safe to say that pretty much any cruise missile system built 'on the cheap' (especially by second and third-world standards) would be so obsolete at the time of its deployment that existing and near-future US countermeasure systems will easily detect and deter their success. Do you think that you are the only one who thought of this? The DoD is very much aware of the cruise missile threat. 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? You see, US weapons platforms are not designed purely as stand-alone systems; each has specific mission parameters towards accomplishing an overall goal. US surface ships can't defend against 100 cruise missiles because because they dont have to; other missions and branches of the service ensure that. Which is why it would be futile to set up a base and launch system to send of hundereds of these missiles at once; it would easily become target #1 on the hit list. (which is probably also why nobody has done it) Of course, unless they planned to use this strictly as a one-time only sneak attack method for starting a war; then the tactic could meet some success. But they would be hard pressed to not tip their hand prematurely, and wind up with a visit from the B-2 before the facilities were even completed. And even if by chance thy managed to pull something like that off, it would be a suicide mission on a national scale, as the country who launched the attack would become a parking lot within 48 hours. Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it to give targetting data for artillery. It would be detected and shot down before it got a single shot off. Or it would take one shot, then get shot down. The reason US UAVs don't get shot down is because they either, 1) utilize low-observable (stealth) technology (which is way beyond the capabilities and budget you've set), or 2) operate in an environment in which we've gained air dominance, set up jamming, and largely eliminated the surface-to-air threats (none of which is likely to happen against the US). And even after all of that we still lose a few. So what chance would anyone else have? Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could "get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there. During Gulf War I we approved, designed from scratch, tested, certifiied, manufactured and fielded the GBU-28 in under a month to counter a specific target. When a job needs to get done, it's surprising how fast we make things happen. Aside from that, US technology is literally quantum leaps beyond anything that a potential adversary could acquire in the near-term, especially on the cheap, as you are suggesting. There would have to be a massive technological infrastructure to simply get to where we are, much less "get inside the decision curve" of the US military. It just isn't feasible... and thats exactly how we want it. From a warfighting standpoint, there really is no way to take us on directly, regardless of anything you've postulated in this post. The best way to go about any kind of counter-strike against our forces is to get about 10,000 guys, give them each some kind of RPG or shoulder-launched AT missile, and let them scatter all over the place and make random attacks. It still won't stop us, but it is the only hope of at least inflicting some damage occasionally. Thomas J. Paladino Jr. New York City |
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 |