A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Defense against UAV's



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 31st 06, 03:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's

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?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #22  
Old May 31st 06, 03:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's

wrote in
ups.com:

I kept specifying "small, stealthy UAVs" - which by definition would
be used for recce, not attack - as these are the hardest targets to
detect and destroy. Now it may be that powerful navies will not be too
troubled by what they can do (you can't hide a ship too easily anyway,
so their enemy will know they are there) but armies certainly are
worried, because UAVs can be used to detect the movements of troops and
vehicles and identify targets for attack - even to lase them to guide
in homing munitions. And some of the recce UAVs being developed at the
moment are really small and quiet and will be very difficult to spot.

Even if SAMs could deal with these small UAVs, the problem would be
that the enemy could then just send over hordes of very cheap UAVs
(without the expensive sensor kit) to soak up the SAMs - a very
cost-effective way of degrading your enemy's capabilities. Unless and
until a small and cheap "anti-UAV" homing missile can be developed, I
think appropriate guns (and ammo) provide the best answer.

It is of course correct that a big, weapon-carrying UAV will be much
easier to detect than a small one (although a stealthy design may still
cause problems, just as stealth strike planes do). In contrast, fast
anti-ship missiles may be difficult to intercept but they have hot
engines and leading-edge surfaces which are easy to detect with IR
sensors: stealth and high speed do not go together very well.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk



There's a lot of ASSUMPTION that this "UAV" was a small drone and not a
full-size RC military aircraft. Does anyone know for certain what it was?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #23  
Old May 31st 06, 03:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


Jack Linthicum wrote:
wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:

snip
It is easy to imagine a swarm of UAVs used as very sheap relatively
slow (200km/h) flying cruise missiles with small warheads, designed to
attack radars and similar on-ship targets that can be seriously damaged
with a small warhead (spray a shotgun of darts with wavy aluminium
tails into that phased array and see what it can do afterwards).


A swarm of UAVs requires a swarm of controllers and a swarm of secure
frequencies to accomplish that control. I wonder if a follow-on to a
Shrike or ALARM would bother to hit the transmitting antennas and
instead have a large enough warhead to take out the whole controlling
facility.

A swarm of current generation UAVs requires a swarm of controllers.

A swarm of highly autonomous UAVs (perhaps better viewed as a swarm of
ultra cheap cruise missiles accompanied by some stealthy UAVs with good
sensor suites) launched on a 'kill everything that floats and
resembles a warship'' need not. The swarm flies silently (no
communication) to the designated target area, contacts the controllers
when it sees the target (or does not find it), the controller just
tells them "move to X,Y" or "20% attack this ship, 20% attack that ship
and the rest presses on to X,Y". One/few controllers, intermittent, low
bandwidth, frequency agile, tough to intercept/jam communication. Of
course, the tough part is the autonomous acting - but as I said, it you
need it to work only in fair weather, out of ground clutter, in "kill
all that is floating" mode, your task is much easier then what the US
requires from its UAVs. The assymetric warfare thing...

  #25  
Old May 31st 06, 04:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's

Jim Yanik wrote:
There's a lot of ASSUMPTION that this "UAV" was a small drone and not a
full-size RC military aircraft. Does anyone know for certain what it was?


Well the USN hasn't said anything yet, so all we have to go on are what
the Iranians are known to have.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ran/ababil.htm
wing area 1.76m²
Max. launching weight 83 kg
Cruise speed 165 Knots
Endurance is 1.5 h

Minus 25 minutes on station leaves 30 minutes there and 30 minutes back
or a range of 80 nm.

-HJC
  #27  
Old May 31st 06, 04:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


Keith W wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Jack Linthicum wrote:


Almost all the arguments one sees here are based on the fact that UAVs
are dumb and if you can take the comms out, you are fine. I am not
sure that will hold for long, especially if the UAVs are used against
ships on open sea, in fair weather, in 'kill every warship you see'
mode - which all makes the autonomous decision making of the UAV so
much easier.


That of course also makes spoofing and the use of decoys much easier
and makes the user rather unpopular with any other seafarers. It'd
be something of a pity if your UAV's decided to attack the local
fishing fleet instead of the USN battle group. Given the number of offshore
rigs and support ships as well as tankers in the Persian Gulf such
indiscriminate weapons would seem rather unattractive to the Iranians
as an example.

If you are using video imaging (backed up by some other, e.g.
IR/passive EM sensors),
I suspect it is a graduate student's exercise in image recognition to
distinguish a warship (esp. aircraft carrier) from an oil
rig/tanker/finshing ship. Especially if you are flying slow.
Chaff and flares might foil simple radar/IR seekers, but I can't see
how would they defeat video imaging sensor (+good software behind it).

Design for minimal communication and bandwidth needs
(just for higher level commands/coordination) - much tougher to detect
and jam.


It is easy to imagine a swarm of UAVs used as very sheap relatively
slow (200km/h) flying cruise missiles with small warheads, designed to
attack radars and similar on-ship targets that can be seriously damaged
with a small warhead (spray a shotgun of darts with wavy aluminium
tails into that phased array and see what it can do afterwards).


200 km/hr UAV's are going to be rather vulnerable to all forms
of active defence including point defence missiles like RAM
and to CIWS.

Yes. That's why you want them to be really cheap and use swarming. On
the other hand RAM is IR homing and the IR signature of a 100hp piston
engine is negligible compared to the IR signature of a rocket/jet
engine of the current antiship missiles.

Phalanx (or other gun-based CIWS) should be effective, but has rather
short range (and not THAT much reloads, if you are dealing with a huge
swarm). I suspect it is also looking at targets with much higher radar
signature and very different characteristics.

The CIWS mounts look rather distinctly and will obviously be among the
targeted areas of the ship. You don't need that much of a warhead to
put CIWS radar ot of commission - so perhaps an UAV with 200kg warhead
can actually carry 8-12 short range missiles designed for homing on
CIWS radar and launch them while being out of range of CIWS.

Another possiblity is to actually fly high (say 5-8km) so that the UAV
will have to be attacked by missiles and/or aircraft, not CIWS guns,
and drop (homing) submunition from there, gravity doing the delivery
work. You will want to make these UAVs stealthy, to make the locking of
the missile seeker real difficulty (and postpone finding the UAVs as
much as possible).

There is a tradeoff between sophistication and cost (and reliability,
simple systems are easier to debug/design correctly). However, a
country like China/India or even Iran should be able to mass produce
good enough UAVs for peanuts (i.e be able to field thousands of them).
The key term being 'good enough', not 'super duper, all weather, high
reliability and long service life'. They need to be good enough to
present a non-negligible threat of crippling the attacker's warships,
not an almost 100% guarantee of destruction.

Stefan

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 =----


  #29  
Old May 31st 06, 04:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
wrote:

If the report on the Iran UAV is accurate, the USN is evidently not on
top of this at present. I hope they are working on it, very hard.


Like anti-radiation missiles. Against the launch sites and control
points.


Since only a simple radio signal is needed to control the UAVs (and
then not all of the time - only when they want to instruct them to do
something) that would be very much harder than hitting a high-powered
radar which has to keep transmitting a distinctive signal all of the
time to do its job. And AR missiles could easily be decoyed by lots of
cheap radio transmitters scattered about.

The problem here is that it could be a kind of 'asymmetric warfare', in
that the costs and problems of the defence are potentially far more
costly than those of the attackers.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk


The mention was of swarms which implies swarms of signals which then
implies if I have an ECM craft up and I get lots of radiation from one
direction I will send a message to that source. The decoys may work the
second time but not the first or third. The control point will be that,
singular, one command directing all of the UAVs from one spot. How many
generals would you trust if you were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

  #30  
Old May 31st 06, 05:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's

Didn't the Serbs shoot down a U.S. UAV with a helicopter door gun over
Bosnia a few years back?

Helicopter guns might be a cheap way to deal with low performance
UAV's,
assuming you have a sensor that can detect the UAV and direct the Helo
to the target.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:23 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.