Defense against UAV's

wrote:

:Not saying it is too easy, but it might all be doable within next 7-10
:years by a country like Iran/India/China (those countries do have
:competent engineers/software developers).
:Note that any of those countries can easily throw $100million for a
roject like this, and with thier salaries and general prices, that
:would buy much more then the same $100milion in US. The UAVs are the
:craze of today anyway and I am sure all of them are doing R&D in them.

But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect,
relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive.

If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After
all, life is cheap in places like Iran.

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

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :Not saying it is too easy, but it might all be doable within next 7-10
: :years by a country like Iran/India/China (those countries do have
: :competent engineers/software developers).
: :Note that any of those countries can easily throw $100million for a
: roject like this, and with thier salaries and general prices, that
: :would buy much more then the same $100milion in US. The UAVs are the
: :craze of today anyway and I am sure all of them are doing R&D in them.
:
: But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect,
: relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive.
:no, no, no, that would be the american route (see Global Hawk and its
rice).

And its capabilities.

:You don't need it bulletproof. The drone's sting should just have a
:reasonable probability to cause damage so that the pilots will have to
:be cautious and stay afar

And you won't do that on the cheap.

come close to one drone and you might be
:fine, but when doing that 10 times the chance that something goes wrong
:for you is getting uncomfortably close to 1. Image that shame - "Shot
:down by drone!"). Quick and dirty and cheap solutions might work
:sufficiently well. "Good enough" , not "super duper". Have one of the
:drone's missiles face backwards to cover rear aspect (and do erratic
:maneouvers if suspecting attack, e.g. when hearing a helo or gunshots
r jet engine; this would also expose side attacks to missile's
:seaker).

Having the drone be big enough to carry missiles, detect targets for
them, and then launch them already carries you out of 'quick and dirty
and cheap solutions'.

: If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After
: all, life is cheap in places like Iran.
:Good pilots are scarse and cost a lot to train. Even in Iran. And
:manned aircraft is not going to be cheap regardless what you do.

And neither are drones of the sort you're talking about.

There are essentially three UAV regimes:

1) Micro-UAV - these are the tiny ones with a couple of feet of
wingspan that are being discussed. These are the 'small, cheap, and
slow' sort. They have a few sensors and a data link sitting on a
small composite platform run by a few HP engine with a prop
(frequently shrouded internal to the body).

2) Tactical UAV - these are things in the Predator size class. They
mount more sensors, are more sophisticated, and quite a bit more
expensive. They're large enough to carry tactical weapons but
probably not large enough to carry anything like an accurate
air-to-air system (good radars are large and expensive).

3) Aircraft UAV - these are the big boys like Global Hawk and the
Boeing X-45. They're big, sophisticated, capable, and expensive.

You can't get 3) (or even 2) on a 1) budget.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Mark Bradford" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


What makes you think UAVs are restricted to props for propulsion?
Pain

Can you give a cite for a ramjet model? Also, could you please cite a
role for a ramjet powered UAV (other than a harpoon/tomahawk - I suppose
they could be considered UAVs).


Ramjet - D21 :-)

The original question was about non-prop power, however.
Most of the large UAV's are jets. Like GlobalHawk.

The small and medium sized ones are prop driven.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
[snip]
: But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect,
: relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive.
:no, no, no, that would be the american route (see Global Hawk and its
rice).

And its capabilities.
you don't need Global Hawk capabilities. Not even Predator.

:You don't need it bulletproof. The drone's sting should just have a
:reasonable probability to cause damage so that the pilots will have to
:be cautious and stay afar

And you won't do that on the cheap.
Sorry, but within 1000feet is really close. You can get by with much
coarser angular resolution then for targetting something 30km away. Not
to say about power requirements...(and size). Radically different (and
much cheaper) approaches then what is currently used in fighters/UAVs
might work well enough.

come close to one drone and you might be
:fine, but when doing that 10 times the chance that something goes wrong
:for you is getting uncomfortably close to 1. Image that shame - "Shot
:down by drone!"). Quick and dirty and cheap solutions might work
:sufficiently well. "Good enough" , not "super duper". Have one of the
:drone's missiles face backwards to cover rear aspect (and do erratic
:maneouvers if suspecting attack, e.g. when hearing a helo or gunshots
r jet engine; this would also expose side attacks to missile's
:seaker).

Having the drone be big enough to carry missiles, detect targets for
them, and then launch them already carries you out of 'quick and dirty
and cheap solutions'.
Big (say half a Predator) does not make it expensive.
Plastic/wood/metal is cheap.
Carrying missiles is not expensive. The missile itself might be
expensive, if you want to have reasonable pk (but then, you don't need
that high pk and russian manpads are not that expensive...)

: If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After
: all, life is cheap in places like Iran.
:Good pilots are scarse and cost a lot to train. Even in Iran. And
:manned aircraft is not going to be cheap regardless what you do.

And neither are drones of the sort you're talking about.
If you want to put into it off the shelf military targetting radar or
similar overkill, sure. If you do it smart ... don't be surprised.

There are essentially three UAV regimes:

1) Micro-UAV - these are the tiny ones with a couple of feet of
wingspan that are being discussed. These are the 'small, cheap, and
slow' sort. They have a few sensors and a data link sitting on a
small composite platform run by a few HP engine with a prop
(frequently shrouded internal to the body).

2) Tactical UAV - these are things in the Predator size class. They
mount more sensors, are more sophisticated, and quite a bit more
expensive. They're large enough to carry tactical weapons but
probably not large enough to carry anything like an accurate
air-to-air system (good radars are large and expensive).
For targetting within 1km you don't need large and expensive radar.
You can build cheap in this size (I prefer size 1.5, as size 1 does not
give you range/damaging payload).
Metal/plastic is cheap. The expensive stuff is sensors and developing
the software. With good software, you don't need that fancy sensors,
especially if you are happy if it works in good visibility only.

3) Aircraft UAV - these are the big boys like Global Hawk and the
Boeing X-45. They're big, sophisticated, capable, and expensive.
And country like Iran/India/China does not really need them.

You can't get 3) (or even 2) on a 1) budget.
You can get 2) with more or less 1) sensor suite on an essentially 1)
budget, especially if you are developing and producing in a country
with much lover labour costs then US, and do mass production. (How many
of Global Hawk/Predators have been produced? What it will do with their
unit price if you make a thousand of them?)


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : wrote:
:[snip]
: : But you're now turning them from small, light, hard to detect,
: : relatively cheap platforms into being large, complex, and expensive.
: :no, no, no, that would be the american route (see Global Hawk and its
: rice).
:
: And its capabilities.
:
:you don't need Global Hawk capabilities. Not even Predator.

You do if you plan on carrying and launching missiles.

: :You don't need it bulletproof. The drone's sting should just have a
: :reasonable probability to cause damage so that the pilots will have to
: :be cautious and stay afar
:
: And you won't do that on the cheap.
:
:Sorry, but within 1000feet is really close. You can get by with much
:coarser angular resolution then for targetting something 30km away. Not
:to say about power requirements...(and size). Radically different (and
:much cheaper) approaches then what is currently used in fighters/UAVs
:might work well enough.

You're real big on using words like 'might' and 'may'. How many
weapon systems have you been involved in the design of?

: come close to one drone and you might be
: :fine, but when doing that 10 times the chance that something goes wrong
: :for you is getting uncomfortably close to 1. Image that shame - "Shot
: :down by drone!"). Quick and dirty and cheap solutions might work
: :sufficiently well. "Good enough" , not "super duper". Have one of the
: :drone's missiles face backwards to cover rear aspect (and do erratic
: :maneouvers if suspecting attack, e.g. when hearing a helo or gunshots
: r jet engine; this would also expose side attacks to missile's
: :seaker).
:
: Having the drone be big enough to carry missiles, detect targets for
: them, and then launch them already carries you out of 'quick and dirty
: and cheap solutions'.
:
:Big (say half a Predator) does not make it expensive.
:Plastic/wood/metal is cheap.

Forming into actual weapons systems is not.

:Carrying missiles is not expensive.

But shooting them is.

:The missile itself might be
:expensive, if you want to have reasonable pk (but then, you don't need
:that high pk and russian manpads are not that expensive...)

But building them into a vehicle that can shoot them with any prayer
of hitting anything is.

: : If you're going to go that route, just used manned aircraft. After
: : all, life is cheap in places like Iran.
: :Good pilots are scarse and cost a lot to train. Even in Iran. And
: :manned aircraft is not going to be cheap regardless what you do.
:
: And neither are drones of the sort you're talking about.
:
:If you want to put into it off the shelf military targetting radar or
:similar overkill, sure. If you do it smart ... don't be surprised.

And you have how much experience putting together systems that
actually work and do things?

: There are essentially three UAV regimes:
:
: 1) Micro-UAV - these are the tiny ones with a couple of feet of
: wingspan that are being discussed. These are the 'small, cheap, and
: slow' sort. They have a few sensors and a data link sitting on a
: small composite platform run by a few HP engine with a prop
: (frequently shrouded internal to the body).
:
: 2) Tactical UAV - these are things in the Predator size class. They
: mount more sensors, are more sophisticated, and quite a bit more
: expensive. They're large enough to carry tactical weapons but
: probably not large enough to carry anything like an accurate
: air-to-air system (good radars are large and expensive).
:
:For targetting within 1km you don't need large and expensive radar.
:You can build cheap in this size (I prefer size 1.5, as size 1 does not
:give you range/damaging payload).

Uh, is that supposed to make sense?

:Metal/plastic is cheap. The expensive stuff is sensors and developing
:the software. With good software, you don't need that fancy sensors,
:especially if you are happy if it works in good visibility only.

You really haven't a clue.

: 3) Aircraft UAV - these are the big boys like Global Hawk and the
: Boeing X-45. They're big, sophisticated, capable, and expensive.
:
:And country like Iran/India/China does not really need them.

And so they don't get the capabilities you want to claim for your
'cheap' system. It won't be shooting at anyone.

: You can't get 3) (or even 2) on a 1) budget.
:You can get 2) with more or less 1) sensor suite on an essentially 1)
:budget, especially if you are developing and producing in a country
:with much lover labour costs then US, and do mass production.

But you can't shoot anyone with that 1) sensor suite.

How many
f Global Hawk/Predators have been produced? What it will do with their
:unit price if you make a thousand of them?)

Not much.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:And your source for saying that a M3M-equipped Lynx can't engage a light
:aircraft or UAV is...?

Gee, where did I say that, Paul? Making up yet more lies?

So, we are that a helicopter can effectively engage a low slow flier,
correct?

:Be detailed and specific, please, you're arguing against current
:doctrine.

Follow along with me now. We're talking about NAVIES. You know.
Folks who have something besides destroyers.

Funny, I could have sworn that a couple of Her Majesty's large grey war
canoes were aircraft carriers. In fact, Illustrious is out on OP AQUILA
at the moment with a deckful of Harriers.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5330

Poor Fred - so much certainty, so few facts...

:I did. You say that helicopters can't intercept slow low-flying air
:contacts and have no capability against them.

Ok, now try reading the words and not lying about what they say.

So in fact you agree that helicopters *can* intercept slow low fliers
and *do* have capability against them?

What were you complaining about, then?

I said "we don't use them as interceptors", which means something
somewhat different. The noun 'interceptor' means just a bit more than
"something that is used to intercept" when talking about aircraft.

Really, Fred? A quick perusal of Joint Publication 1-02 (Department of
Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) gives us
"interceptor" as "A manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or
engagement of airborne objects."

Sounds like it fits the bill.

:I say they can, and they do. The USN agrees enough that it's sending a
:detachment to participate in that phase of NEPTUNE WARRIOR 063.
:
:I fear one of us must be mistaken, but I doubt it's me - I know who's
:writing the exercise orders, and I doubt you do.

I fear one of us is a congenital liar. It's most assuredly you.

Yes, Fred, if you scream "liar" loud enough then you might eventually
convince yourself.

:"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out
:there." writes Fred.
:
:So, a helicopter with a .50" door gun can only watch the UAV, according
:to Fred.
:
:Not a _universally_ shared opinion, but there you go.

So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the
Empire has sunk when that's true.

If you send a helicopter to investigate a low slow flyer, is it not "a
manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or engagement of
airborne objects"? According to the US DoD, that's an 'interceptor', but
Fred doesn't believe them.

:"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out
:there." writes Fred. Where, in that statement, is any acceptance of a
:capability against the slow low flyer?
:
:Is Fred grossly dishonest, or just terribly confused?

I'll simply note that Paul has to go find things out of context to
insert rather than simply leaving the original quotes and context in.

Fred can't cope with his own words, it seems.

Is Paul a liar, or ... well, that seems to be the only possibility,
doesn't it?

Or, perhaps, Paul is right and Fred has to keep screaming "liar!"
because he's been caught - yet again - making grossly incorrect
statements.

:So, is the USN sending helicopters to exercise against "slow low fliers"
roof that it's impossible?
:
:I'm curious. You insist it can't be done and it's not possible and the
:aircraft have no capability... and yet on every detail you turn out to
:be wrong.

Yes, you ARE curious. Most curious is why you are so driven to
misconstrue and lie. Is your life THAT dull again these days, Paul?

Amusing evasion, Fred. How does the USN HELDET participation in NW063's
"slow low-flyer" phase prove me a liar?

:Ain't teamwork great? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the
:US is as blinkered, arrogant, ignorant and dishonest as Fred?

Isn't it useful that not everyone in the UK is the congenital liar
that Paul is?

When Fred calls you a liar, rejoice - it means he's really out on his
facts and knows it.

:Remember the origin of the discussion, Fred - "helicopters don't
:intercept air targets".

Put it back in context again, Paul. What you claim as "the origin of
the discussion" isn't. Of course, why would anyone be surprised that
you'd lie about that?

Answer the question, Fred - can helicopters intercept slow low-flyers or
not?

Oh, wait, you did. Have you changed your mind?

:Like, shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven aircraft? Those were the
:targets for the TuF.

So your logic runs that since there was once a gun intended for this
that all guns from then on are?

No, Fred - what were you saying about liars? Isn't it a terrible thing
to make up false opinions and attribute them to someone? And is not "tu
quoque" a despicable loser's tactic?

Gee, Britain must be building all those tanks just to bust trench
lines then.

No - times changed. The .50" stopped being a useful weapon against
front-line combat aircraft (and tanks) a long time ago - but it remains
effective against low slow fliers (which, oddly enough, are the targets
under discussion here) among many other targets: hence its widespread
retention and use.


Some of us understand these complicated things. Other people, evidently,
don't...

:The UAVs of concern are small 100kt prop jobs.
:
:Poor Fred, so fixated on being right, so determined that he can never be
:wrong...

Paul, this is the sort of remark people have been making for 20 years
in an effort to 'win' Usenet fights they pick.

And how do I "win a fight" with you, Fred? You'll never admit to being
wrong, you'll lie and evade and insult until Hell freezes over rather
than ever concede the least error.

It's amusing to steer you through your predictable pattern of behaviour,
that's all.

:You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts.

I made no such claim. You're lying again.

"So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the
Empire has sunk when that's true." writes Fred.

Perhaps this is actually meant to be an acceptance of Fred's error,
wrapped in one of his petty Anglophobic rants? It doesn't exactly scream
"yes, I agree, helicopters *can* intercept low slow fliers". But perhaps
there's context and meaning hidden there that is too subtle for non-Fred
life forms to comprehend.

Shall we try a straight question? Earlier, I asked Fred "So, Fred, do
naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category or not?"

Fred replies, "No, they do not."

Now, Fred denies his denial. Is Fred dishonest or just confused?

:You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow
:low-flying air contacts.

I made no such claim. You're lying again.

Fred goes on to tell us "'Intercept' implies they do something other
than
watch once they get out there."

(Actually, to "intercept" is defined as identification and / or
engagement, but let's not trouble Fred with more facts than his closed
little mind can handle)

So to Fred, claiming that helicopters have no ability to engage the
target, means they carry effective weapons. Strange logic, but that's
Fred for you.

:I pointed out that they can and they do.

Are you starting to see a pattern here, Paul?

Certainly am - every time you call me a liar, it's because I've caught
you in an error, and rather than just shrug and say "live and learn" you
have to scream "liar!".

:And so it goes... every time Fred makes a claim that turns out to be
:bold, sweeping and wrong, his reaction is to escalate the pitch of his
:"liar!" whine. He never learns, he never reconsiders, he can only accuse
:anyone who disagrees with him of lying.

Pathetic lowest form of Usenet life, Paul.

Well, that is *such* a factual riposte that I'm just floored, Fred.

:Which would you prefer, Fred? You love to scream "liar", how do you want
:your chance to prove it?

Already proven. See above. You've repeatedly claimed I've said
things I never said based on your own pathetic misinterpretations.

Sorry, Fred, but you're condemned from your own mouth.

Unless "No, they do not" means "yes" to you, that is...

--
Paul J. Adam

In message ,
writes
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:33:09 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

snipped for brevity

I've got a question, Paul. How susceptible would these UAVs be to a
good, old fashioned "thumping"? I guess the question would go to any
of the experienced fighter guys, too.

I cheerfully admit that I don't know - we don't have enough spare UAVs
for that kind of trial

Do we even need to shoot the *******s?

I'd like to keep the options open. Come in from above (where the sensors
can't see you) and see if the downwash takes it out: if not, then donate
some half-inch Raufoss at 1,100 rounds a minute.


--
Paul J. Adam

In article Ad6gg.5190$771.1108@edtnps89,
(Ken Chaddock) wrote:

The predominantly wooden deHavilland Mosquito was
one of the first aircraft to be designed with this capability
in mind. Against World War II radar systems, that approach was
fairly successful, but it would not be appropriate today.


I think stealth came way down the list when the Mosquito was
designed, especially as radar was so secret those days. Design of
the Mosquito started in 1938 when German Radar was unknown. It
was more likely wood was adopted because De Haviland had far more
experience with that material than metal. IIRC the DH4 had a
monocoque fuselage.

Ken Young

I think you are ignoring the direction of COTS technology. For many
years there has been a software suite PVM (Parallel Virtual Machine).
This effectively binds together a number of processors together and
runs a single program.

In Java you program in threads. Each thread can be run independently.
The PVM system has the task of deciding which machine should run the
thread. Witth UAVs what you do is this - You have a number of processes
associated with actually flying the airplane, preprocessing of the
sensor suite and firing of the machine gun which are confined to a
specific processor - the local on board processor, and other threads
concerned with the deeper stategy that will run on any processor. PVM
decides which processor to use on the basis of how occupied the
processors are and the rate of data transmission possible. The
programmer does not have to know the details of how resources are
allocated.

You hould really not be thinking about knowledge of aircraft position
to each other, you should be thinking about a Java program and threads.
In Javas I can say

class aircraft{
double xpos,ypos,zpos;//Positions.
double vx,vy,vz;//Velocities;
......
};

I can say in my main module.


int nfriend,nhostile;//Number of aircraft
aircraft *friend, *hostile;

The threads will constantly be updating this. You will have a thread
called "dogfight" which will work out strategy.

The prograamer need not know how the data is transmitted. The software
to do this is around.

wrote in message
...
In article Ad6gg.5190$771.1108@edtnps89,
(Ken Chaddock) wrote:

The predominantly wooden deHavilland Mosquito was
one of the first aircraft to be designed with this capability
in mind. Against World War II radar systems, that approach was
fairly successful, but it would not be appropriate today.


I think stealth came way down the list when the Mosquito was
designed, especially as radar was so secret those days. Design of
the Mosquito started in 1938 when German Radar was unknown. It
was more likely wood was adopted because De Haviland had far more
experience with that material than metal. IIRC the DH4 had a
monocoque fuselage.

My grandfather was the engineer in the RAE's timber mechanics
laboratory in Bucks in the 30s and early 40s. AIUI, the idea of low
observability just wasn't a factor considered when he did the tests on
de Havilland's plywood aircraft construction to prove the concept for
combat aircraft. What was important was durability and structural
integrity after aerobatic stress or battle damage. If you look up the
research in the archives you'll find much of it associated with C.J.
Chaplin, M.Sc.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)