Solomon Islands intervention force

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
"M.R." wrote in message
u
Really interesting this evolution of UAV's and other weapons such as
JDAM munitions.
How do the JDAM munitions work? Is it and inertia launch then initial
GPS guidance and an infra-red image for the last stage to home in on.
If a UAV and JDAM weapon where combined that would have to be a fairly
stealthy target?

Current JDAMS are pure GPS -- no IR seeker.

They are INS/GPS guided and also have an INS only mode as a failsafe against
GPS jamming.

The weapon isn etirely passive
and certainly could be stealthy. The problem is that even the 500-lb JDAM
is really too big for current UAVs. Smaller bombs are in development, and
we may well see UAVs armed with them in the not-too-distant future.

The Small Diameter Bomb was due to be deployed in around 2006 i think. The
250lb weapon would be ideal for fitting to smaller platforms such as UAVs -
the probuction X-47, if there is one, would be able to carry a number of
them - and they have a high penetrating power fora small weapon. Looks
like it could be a good weapons system.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)


BMFull

"Ben Full" wrote in message

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
Current JDAMS are pure GPS -- no IR seeker.

They are INS/GPS guided and also have an INS only mode as a failsafe
against GPS jamming.

You're right, of course. I meant only that they have no terminal imaging
seeker.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 02:31:28 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:34:07 -0700, matt weber wrote:

That makes sense. How easy would it be for the UAV to listen to thre
incoming signal, and match its response to it?

The Self Projection jammer pods often represent more than the
available lift capacity of the UAV unless you are talking about
something the size of a Predator or a Global Hawk...

Why would it need to be so big? Is it the receiving equipment, the
transmitting equipment, or the electronics in between that takes up
the space?
All of the above, you need a receiver that can receive almost
anything, and enough electronics to be able to analyse the
transmission in real time (which requires very FAST A/D, identify the
characteristics of the emitter so they can be matched against the
threat library, and then you need a transmitter of sufficient power
and ability to generate an appropriate rep rate and modulation scheme
to be able to jam the threat, if it is a threat. All up, if you are
lucky, perhaps only a few hundred Kg...

(Of course, an adversary could build lots of cheap boxes that give
off signals that appear the same as a real radar, to soak up lots of
anti-radiation missiles).

While it could be done, it isn't all that cost effective, to build an
emitter that would look enough like a real radar to be attacked would
probably cost 15-20% of the price of the real thing.

How much do real radars cost?
Depend upon how fancy you want to make them. The military is famous
for 'gold plating', and what you have now is a computer that happens
to have a radar attached. Some of them have 8 figure price tags, the
problem is in producing an emitter that will be identified as a
potential threat, it really has to produce an output that looks like a
threat, which means you probably need just about the entire transmit
package.

Certainly there are some radio transmitting equipments that are
cheap -- for example mobile phones and wi-fi stations -- and I'd
imagine that scaling up the transmitting powrer on such a device
would be too expensive either.
Those however are very simple emitter that don't depend upon complex
modulation schemes, fast frequency hopping, or monopulse designs...
The bind is that todays ADF and Fire Control Radars control radars are
depend upon complex modulation schemes to extract a great deal of
information. For example they can tell the difference between a
737-200 and a 737-300, a helicopter and similar weight jet fighter,
and it isn't based upon the strength of the radar reflection, it is
based upon the assortment of doppler shifts they see in the return,
they really can see the fan on the engine, the rotor on the
helicopter, and propeller...

How good are passive sensors compared to radar? I would imagine that
visual light and infra-red would be quite good ways of detecting
aircraft (and if you have 2 detectors some distance away you can use
triangulation to get the exact position), at least when there are no
clouds.

Depends upon what you are looking for.
[...]
If you are looking for an F4 or a B52, it won't be very hard,

That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind (or an F-16 or
Tornado or F-22, etc, bascially any modern supersonic aircraft)
Passive detections at this point is in two parts. At the moment only a
limited amount is done via EO, as a friend who in the business put it,
it is very limited because our heart really isn't in it. Otherwise it
is mostly based upon EMI that is generated on the other end. So if the
other aircraft is electrically quiet, and doesn't have a big visual
image, or create massive air flow disruptions, passive sensing won't
see very much.

Light the burners, or engage in some fancy maneuvers, or turn on the
search radar, and that is another story...

Passive detection is very useful if you have enough information, i.e.
if your threat library says that is a model XX-YY radar, and you know
those are only carried on a single type of airframe...

Hi,

The list of unit deployed has some security restrictions that would stop it
from being listed here.

Any particular reason you're interested in exactly what units went?

ME


"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
Does anybody know exactly which units are going to the Solomon Islands?
The Defence media releases haven't contained much detail, other than the
Australian infantry contingent will be from the 3rd Brigade. The
Solomons government did ask for the SAS, but I take it they're not doing.

I know HMAS Manoora sailed is leaving today and the airlift of police
will begin on Thursday.

What units are New Zealand, PNG, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga sending?

Cheers
David

me wrote:
The list of unit deployed has some security restrictions that would
stop it
from being listed here.

We knew pretty much the full list of units involved in Operation
Falconer. Why would there more security restrictions about the Solomons
than about Iraq?

Any particular reason you're interested in exactly what units went?

Just curiosity. The question was specifically about units from New
Zealand, PNG, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, because this was not covered by the
Australian media.

Cheers
David

"David Bromage" wrote in message

me wrote:

The list of unit deployed has some security restrictions that
would
stop it from being listed here.

We knew pretty much the full list of units involved in Operation
Falconer. Why would there more security restrictions about the
Solomons than about Iraq?

David, it's silly to ask something like that in here - all we can do
(or are allowed to do) is speculate. You should go see someone
official and ask them.

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote in message ...
"David Bromage" wrote in message

me wrote:

The list of unit deployed has some security restrictions that
would
stop it from being listed here.

We knew pretty much the full list of units involved in Operation
Falconer. Why would there more security restrictions about the
Solomons than about Iraq?

David, it's silly to ask something like that in here - all we can do
(or are allowed to do) is speculate. You should go see someone
official and ask them.

Or people with an interest in military affairs can post links to
published details (either in the local media or official sites) that
they have noticed. It's not like there is a 'one stop shop' for info
about all the forces involved (although the Aussie Op Anode page is
good for their stuff).

Cheers
Errol Cavit