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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote:
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 - then the USN woke up to the need for a short-range defence system, and Phalanx was the eventual answer. Is that installed on the ship in question? http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...hip/cvn-76.htm USS RONALD REAGAN is equipped with Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM), which replaces the Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) used on other carriers. RAM Systems pack 21 fire and forget missiles capable of destroying any high-speed incoming targets. But how about low-speed incoming targets? Send in the Stringbags? Better yet, assign each Carrier Strike Group an ESG for protection against slow flying targets. Why? For the fighter aircraft that can hover in midair. VIFF 'em dead. -HJC |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote in message oups.com... Keith W wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Hint: Look up the accuracy specifications of GPS. In 7-10 years it will be Galileo. The specifications are a little bit eklastic as they depend on integration time. If you are talking about RELATIVE separation this will in fact be only a few centimers, the accuracy of DGPS. The accuracy of the GPS systems isnt the issue anyway. Its handling the problem of separattion of large numbers of drones. If they have to communicate with each other that introduces extra weight, a considerable processing issue and a vulnerability to jamming and/or spoofing. Frankly you'd probably be better off accepting a certain percentage of losses due to mid air collisions 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 =---- The issue of transmission is the ability of a controller to take action. You dont get it. To maintain separation each drone needs to know where its neighbours are not just its own position Also you need some degree of defense in depth. If an enemy swarm approached you, you would need the ability to direct resources to that are. One UAV with a LMG is not going to stop a swarm. If however it had communication technoilogy it might. The USN isnt going to rely on one LMG for defence Acceptance of losses due to mid air collisions - OK there will be heavy losses from a variety of causes. This is, of course, acceptable in a cheap unmanned system. To me the amazing thing is the sophistication of COTS. You talk about weight and cost, but I can put a mobile in my shirt pocket which can do the most amazing things. Spoofing - all converstaions are routinely encrypted. Jamming - yes OK but if you are the US you simply put the jammers out of action. The US is doing the jamming in this scenarion and dont kid yourself that encryption cant be broken. In point of fact use of an error correcting code, such as Reed Soloman, will go a long way to soving the problem of jamming. You transmit in bursts, the jammers have be on all the time. And this is a problem because ? If you were to have a swarm of UAVs with slightly modified mobile phones with some aircraft being base stations and commumicating via satellite you would have gone a fair way to building your system without too much reaearch. Psst mobile phones require repeaters in line of sight, there arent too many in the middle of the Gulf 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 =---- |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: : 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. What makes you so certain that gunnery radar WILL lock on to a stealthy UAV? The UAVs are designed, after all, to avoid being picked up by radar. For defence planning purposes the assumption has to be that radar will not probably work against them, unless and until it is proved to be capable of doing so. To take any other attitude would be foolish complacency. :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. And exactly how will the pilot aim his guns, if the radar gunsight won't lock on and the sights he's got are no better than WW2 standards? Hint #1: in WW2 the Luftwaffe found that only between 2% and 5% of the shots they fired hit the target - and they were shooting at B-17s! Now scale down the target size to a UAV with a wingspan of a couple of metres, and work out how much ammo would have to be fired to nail one. Hint #2: unlike the Luftwaffe's ammo, the current standard US 20mm aircraft SAPHEI shell, the PGU-28/B, does not have a tracer - so the pilot will have no idea where his shots are going. :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.... I sincerely hope that you have absolutely no connection with the planning of USN defence systems, because that sort of sneering complacency gets the wrong people killed. :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. How, exactly? Ordinary MGs with eyeball sights stand hardly any chance of connecting with a small plane at an unknown distance and travelling at an unknown speed, unless it comes very low and close. Radar FCS would probably not even pick it up. The report I referenced has this to say: "According to a statement of Hezbollah leader, the flight over Israel to Nahariya lasted 14 minutes. Israeli side confirms this claim." The report also says: "Currently no country has an efficient defense against small low-flying UAVs, because existing air defense systems are not designed to counter threats of this type. Air defenses are mainly aimed at relatively large and fast planes. Thus, it is not surprising that Israeli air defense turned out to be weak against "Mirsad 1" UAV. Israeli army could also do nothing to shut down the plane though they observed the entire flight over their territory." Unless you have evidence that the report is a fabrication - in which case please post it here - what are your grounds for dismissing it, except of course that you don't want to believe 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. That's right: the Styx was a very big and quite slow missile which made a nice big target. Modern anti-ship missiles are in a completely different league. Please note that the Israelis now fit Phalanx to just about all of their warships. :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. So please explain - why in your opinion was Phalanx developed? Just to help you, I have a copy of an article by the US technical naval historian Norman Friedman, which describes the Phalanx as "specifically designed to destroy incoming missiles which have survived other fleet defences." Your basic attitude seems to be that the USN defences will work perfectly as they do "in the movies", while their attackers will be easily defeated. Try asking the crew of USS Stark about that. NO weapon system, offensive or defensive, can be relied upon to work all of the time, for a variety of technical and human failure reasons. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
In message , Fred J. McCall
writes wrote: :That's because ships haven't had to deal with UAVs before. Air targets are air targets. Helicopters are neither trained nor equipped to do air intercepts. Perhaps not in the USN, but there *are* other navies... :As someone :else on this board has suggested, a helo with a machine gun may :actually be the best way of dealing with small, slow UAVs "Someone on this board" will inevitably suggest all sorts of stupid things. Hint #1: It's not a 'board'. Its called a newsgroup. 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. Smaller UAVs, light civilian aircraft et cetera fly rather slower than some helicopters - the Lynx has a higher cruise speed than many light aircraft's "pass this red line and the wings fall off" Vne - and can leave most of the smaller UAVs standing (top speed ~170kt compared to ScanEagle's 60kt, for example). Or, more appropriately, intercept, hold formation, and allow the employment of an M3M .50" machine gun from the most appropriate range and angle. After all, when conducting trials to work out what useful things a UAV could do for your forces at sea, it makes sense to also check out what unhelpful things an adversary might try to do with his own UAVs and how they might be detected and if necessary dissuaded... -- Paul J. Adam |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:44:09 -0700, Mark Borgerson wrote:
Why are you assuming that the command post does not move? I see no reason that a mobile command post and multiple mobile transmitters could not be used. "I see no reason why all of the problems with my idea can't be addressed by making my system even more complex." You already have a large number of Predator-sized UAVs (the Predator has a wingspan of almost 50 feet and is about 28 feet long, by the way, for a payload of about 450 pounds), which are apparently equipped with a sensor suite that can image ships in visible light and IR (it would kind of suck to not be able to see your target several miles away in haze, or if it was dark out, so I'm assuming you've already thrown in multispectral imaging capability, or hey, why not synthetic aperture radar) plus a laser rangefinder and sophisticated ESM receivers that can classify and locate enemy radar emissions, plus a Mk 1 Electronic Brain that can fuse all the sensor data, analyze images to reliably identify specific ship types from any angle and in any lighting conditions, and decide all by itself to engage targets with the weapons that also somehow have to fit in that 450 lb payload. Oops, I almost forgot the swarm of decoy aircraft that match the radar, IR, visual, and ESM signature of your real attack UAVs (so the enemy can't easily classify them as decoys and ignore them), but are just there to make things more confusing. Now you want to add a mobile command infrastructure, presumably with a horde of mobile decoy transmitters to make the actual transmitters harder to target (if the decoys aren't mobile, after all, they won't be very effective decoys.) What happens if the ships you're trying to attack are below the horizon from your coast? Better add a satellite communication system so you can still order your UAVs around when they're more than 20 miles offshore. Or hey, wait a minute, the UAVs are autonomous, so why not make them submersible too? If they're attacked, they can just dive into the water and continue the rest of the way to the target safely. At one stroke, you've just rendered all of the enemy's sophisticated air defense systems useless! I think there might be a point somewhere in there when the leaders of Ashcanistan will tell you and your Asymmetrical Warefare-O-Matic system to get lost, and go back to their original idea of using WWI-era naval mines and suicide speedboats to inconvenience the naval forces of the Great Satan. ljd |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"rb" wrote in message ... wrote: According to: http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html An Iranian UAV was able to circle a U.S. aircraft carrier undetected for 25 minutes. With U.S. forces making increasing use of UAV's, the inevitable question becomes: How can we protect our forces against UAV's when other countries or terrorist organizations start using them against us? Highly unlikely that it went undetected for 25 mins. More likely it's Iranian sabre rattling again. rb Indeed. How would they have known it wasn't detected for 25 minutes after detecting it after all |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . wrote in ups.com: According to: http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html An Iranian UAV was able to circle a U.S. aircraft carrier undetected for 25 minutes. With U.S. forces making increasing use of UAV's, the inevitable question becomes: How can we protect our forces against UAV's when other countries or terrorist organizations start using them against us? Was the Iranian "UAV" a small drone like ours,or was it a FULL-SIZE aircraft that was remote controlled? most likely it was a genie out of some Persian story, and dreamed up by some Russian journalist. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 27th 05 06:23 PM |
CRS: V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 14th 05 08:14 PM |
Air defense (naval and air force) | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Naval air defense | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |