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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
In message , phil hunt
writes On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote: That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous combat systems. Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a picture. Falling off a cliff isn't a problem once you've learned how to fly like Superman. Trouble is, that prerequisite is harder than you might expect. Getting a machine to tell a T-72 from a M1A1 from a Leclerc is hard enough in good conditions: doing so in the presence of camouflage, obscurants and when the crew have run out of internal stowage (so have hung lots of external gear) and maybe stored some spare track plates on the glacis front ('cause they need the spare plates and they might as well be extra armour) gets _really_ tricky. Do you err on the side of "tank-like vehicle, kill!" or "if you're not sure don't attack"? Would it not be embarrasing to have a successful armoured raid broken up by your own missiles? It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the target. Which presupposes you know where the target is, even roughly, in a sufficiently timely manner. Weapons like this were in existance 20 years ago, for example the Exocet anti-ship missile. Which never once hit its intended target from an air launch (five launches, all aimed at 'carriers'; two hits, one on a picket ship and one on a STUFT that was seduced off another picket) Bad example. (Besides, Exocet in 1982 was a frontline Western capability, launched from aircraft with radar that could cover the missile's range window... and they _still_ missed their intended targets. You're talking about Hail Mary shots of extended-ranged Exocets from the Argentine mainland... really not likely to work) I'm not bsure what problems you envisage with doing this; perhaps you could elaborate? Key problem is that going up against the US loses you your comms and observation (in oldspeak) or your C4ISTAR (in newspeak). Can't get recce flights out to see where they are, can't get communication with your forward observers, can't orbit surveillance assets. Observe how thoroughly Iraq was deceived in 1991, for instance, or how Argentina spent most of the Falklands conflict trying to figure out where the British forces were and what they were doing. (Even when they had a perfect target, they hit escorts rather than HVUs) 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. What you could do is have the missile, if it doesn't find a target to hang around in the area looking for one. (The British ALARM missile does this literally :-)). Which area are you firing it at? Seeker windows are small and battlefields are large. The larger the area it's expected to scan, the harder it is to build and the less reliable it will be. (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) The topographic data would probably be available if the missile is flying over the territory of its own country. Otherwise, there are other methods of nagivation: dead reckoning, celestial, a LORAN-like system could be set up. DR is patchy at best unless you've got good inertial guidance systems (non-trivial). Celestial only works on clear nights - so you're limited to fighting wars after dark on cloudless nights with no flares in the sky. LORAN is a radio broadcast and therefore not survivable against a US-style opponent. or up high where the view is better, It's possible that a mission might require some of the flight to be at high level and some at low level. I imagine the missiles could be programmed for a mission by sticking a computer with an Ethernet cable into a slot on the missile. This has only been done for twenty years or so in the West, so hardly a great advance. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:
Otherwise, there are other methods of nagivation: dead reckoning, celestial, a LORAN-like system could be set up. Your LORAN system bites the dust when the curtain goes up. Depending on LORAN plays to one of the great strengths of the US... Electronic warfare. (Not to mention various more violent ways of taking the system off the air.) D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Bernardz wrote:
Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2, V1 jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US ally cities. Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big anyway and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway each missile. Aiming them is trivial. Producing them, storing them until needed, deploying them when needed, and launching them in a coordinated fashion *isn't*. (And all the steps in the process are vulnerable to disruption.) D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
In message , phil hunt
writes Indeed. Developing and caching weapons that allow people to be guerrillas with reduced risk to themselves (such as time-delayed mortars) would seem an obvious thing to do. Done thirty years ago with assorted single launchers (basically just a rail and a stand) to point a 107mm or 122mm rocket targetwards, and a countdown timer to fire it minutes or hours after the guerilla has departed. If you're lucky then you can plant it on the hospital roof, across the street from the orphanage and next door to the elementary school, and tip off the news crews so that any enemy counterbattery fire is widely reported. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
ess (phil hunt) wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:52:28 GMT, Derek Lyons wrote: (phil hunt) wrote: Guidance systems depend on *much* more than simply their computers. You also need the inertial components, or their analogs, and *those* are going to be hard to obtain in large quantities, especially at any useful accuracy level. digital cameras can do much of the job, and they are available cheaply. ROTFLMAO. A commercial digital camera isn't within an order of magnitude of defense imaging systems and *isn't* a replacement for inertial components. (I.E. a camera can image a target, it cannot keep your missile level, or on a proper course.) snipped various fanciful uses Many of these depend on the West not deploying something it's exceedingly capable at; Electronic warfare and countermeasures. What electronic countermeasures could be used? Any number of the the systems that the US has developed, especially for naval and aviation uses. 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. Problem is, the Western powers can get inside this curve faster than the medium nation can. The factories, power grid, etc of the medium nation can be taken out within a few weeks to months via manned bombers, or our own cruise missiles. Vital components produced overseas can be stopped via blockade. That's after the war breaks out. The USA isn't likely to start bombing every country with an arms industry, is it? No. But bombing after war breaks out is about 99% as efficient as doing so before the war breaks out. Your LCCM's have to be stored somewhere, and then deployed to their firing points. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting if, but the Soviets, though at an apparent disadvantage,
weren't faced with such overwhelming military power, and had a history of successfully repelling invaders. It would have been tough to motivate the Iraqis to such determination given that they knew their opponents were vastly superior based on the clear demostrated in the Kuwait war. And I get the impression the average Iraqi was even less loyal to the Iraqi government than the Russians were to theirs. Finally, I would imagine the Soviets were even more ruthless in there methods for enforcing behavior. Jarg "Simon Morden" wrote in message ... Michael Ash wrote: I do recall thinking, during the fall of Iraq and the immediate aftermath, that a trained monkey could probably do a better job of defending that country. Take all of those army units that got surrounded/wiped out/whatever and simply distribute them throughout the cities. Give each one a rifle, give RPGs to as many as you can. Tell them to wait in a building by the window. When they see Americans, shoot (at) them. As it was, I suppose the high ranks were too busy trying to get out of harm's way with as much cash as possible to put any effort into making life hard on the US Army. I concur. If the Iraqis had been as determined as say, the Soviets in defense of Leningrad and Stalingrad, the choices would have been between bomb Baghdad flat or suffer massive casualties. Thank God they weren't. Indeed, the general level of competence of most terrorist/armed resistance movements is worryingly low. Where do these guys get their training? (I know the answer is the CIA, but I'll just ask nursie for more thorazine rather than go down that road...) Simon Morden -- __________________________________________________ ______ Visit the Book of Morden at http://www.bookofmorden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk *Thy Kingdom Come - a brief history of Armageddon* out now from Lone Wolf |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message . .. I think that Phil is probably talking about weapons like the IAI Harpy. It is a relatively inexpensive "CM" used in SEAD operations. The only significant technology employed by this vehicle is in the sensor (and even there, a "middle-ranking country" should not have a problem developing or procuring). The question really is if it is possible to integrate different sensors (TV, IR) on such vehicles, if you can accurately identify targets (based on some signature characteristics or library), and how effective it could be (at not killing your own or being easily defeated by the enemy). And those questions are the kind that even the US, with its multi-billion dollar R&D structure, is tangling with--do you really see some second/third world potential foe solving that dilemma over the posited period of the next ten years? I don't. The US has a number of programs all employing various degrees of technological innovation. While money has been allocated into the research of new UAV/UCAV's, obviously that is a relatively small investment (when compared to the total budget). Even with those programs, human involvement seems to be essential in the operation of the system and targeting of the enemy. Obviously the program selection, funding, and priority given differs from country to country. I'm just stating that another country could take a position on this matter that might differ from that of the US. That depends on the programming of the weapon. The same thought process that goes into autonomously targeted systems (ALARM, Harpy, SMArt, etc.) - systems that can be launched against enemy positions and where the weapon autonomously selects on locks on to its target - would be used. Those home on active emitters, keeping their last transmitting location in their memory in case they drop off the air. That is a big difference from going after targets that are purely passive and are not radiating (or not radiating anything you can actually read with a system that could be placed in such a small weapon--detecting the frequency agile signals from vehicle FM radios is not going to work). There is a reason I included the SMArt artillery round. It's advanced sensor will detect and target armored vehicles (MBT's, AIFV's, APC's, etc.) while "loitering" over enemy positions. Depending on the target, different sensors can be used that can target different target characteristics. The SMArt 155mm artillery shell is already in service, so the technology for fusing such sensors to UAV's (like the Harpy) is surely not a decade away. Good questions for the side employing them. If you are indeed talking about a "massive" use of such weapons, I think that the Patriots (and other anti-aircraft systems) would be quickly (and quite expensively) overwhelmed. Overwhelming, confusing, and otherwise countering the sensor might be a better approach. I disagree. On the one hand you are going to have to use a pretty complex CM of sorts, as we have already seen from the discussion to this point, if you are going to engage previously unlocated targets, so the idea that these things will be cheaply turned out in some converted auto garage is not going to cut it. A UAV is not an expensive proposition when you take away every aspect of human control after launch. It can also be deployed in such a fashion that few soldiers are needed in their transporation, targeting, and launch. For example, Turkey recently purchased roughly 100 Harpy's. While the cost has not been disclosed (at least to any sources I have access to), it is not considered to be "prohibitive" or even "substantial". A single truck-transporter can carry 18 such weapons in canisters, and a battery of 3 can launch 54 of them simultaneously. They will also be expensive--the R&D effort is still required, since what has been postulated is essentially an autonomous attack system that does not currently exist even in the US. But it does exist in the form of an artillery shell that can be fired 40 km away from its target (in the case of weapons against armored vehicles). Why not extend that range to perhaps 100+ km by fusing it onto the body of a UAV (like the one used against radar transmissions)? Third, the number of Patiots that can be made available is not a trivial number--count the number of missiles available in the uploaded canisters of a single battery, not to mention the reminder of its ABL that is accompanying them. How many Patriots are used against incoming artillery shells? Imagine that instead of artillery shells you have hundreds of self-guided UAV's. Even against a Harpy battery (54 incoming vehicles that will loiter until they detonate), what exactly can a Patriot battery do? Now imagine a few hundred more, some targeting AD and others armored vehicles or ships. Finally, we have a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS. Perhaps I'm not informed on the subject, but how many UAV's or CM's have been shot down by heat-seeking MANPADS (ever)? Some UAV's have been lost in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan due to ground fire (AAA), but I've never heard of a confirmed loss due to a MANPAD. Sorry, this just does not look realistic to me. Other posters have taken the more proper tack--don't try to confront the US on conventional terms and instead go the unconventional warfare route--much more likely to at least stand a chance at success of sorts. I'm not trying to get into the mind of every despot in the world. However, many of them invest time and money on conventional programs (like ballistic missiles). Compared to a ballistic missile system, wouldn't a sensor-fused CM be a better investment? If you are talking about a "massive" deployment of such inexpensive weapons, you might not need to concern yourself with those that "miss". Depending on the cost of the vehicles, the total number acquired, and the budget allocated, the user might be satisfied with a success rate well below 100%. I'd be surprised if this approach yielded a system that acheived a success rate that reaches even double digits--for the commitment of significant resources that would have been better used training irregulars and creating caches of weapons and explosives. Irregulars are not going to stop the advance of any regular army (their mission is quite different). What the army of a country needs to do is to target the enemy formations. As was proved once again in Iraq, it is suicidal to stand up against a better equipped and trained military in order to fight a "conventional" war. The speed, accuracy and lethality ( the "punch") cannot be countered with 1960's defensive technology. You can however try to expose any weakness that might exist in the defenses of your superior opponent (much like the Iraqi irregulars tried doing). The Harpy has been around for a while. And in the mean time, technology has progressed and costs of acquisition declined (for commercially available components). Again, there is one heck of a difference between going after an active emitter like an AD radar and passive targets, especially if you are the disadvantaged party in terms if ISR and C-4, which we can bet the opposition would be in such a scenario. How difficult was it for the Iraqi's to know the general geographic position of the US troops? Turning on CNN being one easy way. Imagine if they could send self-targeting systems into the general location from 40 km away (using SMArt), what the US position would be. Obviously the Air Force would have something to target (those nice artillery pieces), so that could not last for long. But what if some regular-looking trucks a few hundred km's away were achieving the same result? In that scenario, all I can do is remember the "Scud hunt" from GW1. Brooks |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message . .. I think that Phil is probably talking about weapons like the IAI Harpy. It is a relatively inexpensive "CM" used in SEAD operations. The only significant technology employed by this vehicle is in the sensor (and even there, a "middle-ranking country" should not have a problem developing or procuring). The question really is if it is possible to integrate different sensors (TV, IR) on such vehicles, if you can accurately identify targets (based on some signature characteristics or library), and how effective it could be (at not killing your own or being easily defeated by the enemy). And those questions are the kind that even the US, with its multi-billion dollar R&D structure, is tangling with--do you really see some second/third world potential foe solving that dilemma over the posited period of the next ten years? I don't. The US has a number of programs all employing various degrees of technological innovation. While money has been allocated into the research of new UAV/UCAV's, obviously that is a relatively small investment (when compared to the total budget). Even with those programs, human involvement seems to be essential in the operation of the system and targeting of the enemy. Obviously the program selection, funding, and priority given differs from country to country. I'm just stating that another country could take a position on this matter that might differ from that of the US. That depends on the programming of the weapon. The same thought process that goes into autonomously targeted systems (ALARM, Harpy, SMArt, etc.) - systems that can be launched against enemy positions and where the weapon autonomously selects on locks on to its target - would be used. Those home on active emitters, keeping their last transmitting location in their memory in case they drop off the air. That is a big difference from going after targets that are purely passive and are not radiating (or not radiating anything you can actually read with a system that could be placed in such a small weapon--detecting the frequency agile signals from vehicle FM radios is not going to work). There is a reason I included the SMArt artillery round. It's advanced sensor will detect and target armored vehicles (MBT's, AIFV's, APC's, etc.) while "loitering" over enemy positions. Depending on the target, different sensors can be used that can target different target characteristics. The SMArt 155mm artillery shell is already in service, so the technology for fusing such sensors to UAV's (like the Harpy) is surely not a decade away. Good questions for the side employing them. If you are indeed talking about a "massive" use of such weapons, I think that the Patriots (and other anti-aircraft systems) would be quickly (and quite expensively) overwhelmed. Overwhelming, confusing, and otherwise countering the sensor might be a better approach. I disagree. On the one hand you are going to have to use a pretty complex CM of sorts, as we have already seen from the discussion to this point, if you are going to engage previously unlocated targets, so the idea that these things will be cheaply turned out in some converted auto garage is not going to cut it. A UAV is not an expensive proposition when you take away every aspect of human control after launch. It can also be deployed in such a fashion that few soldiers are needed in their transporation, targeting, and launch. For example, Turkey recently purchased roughly 100 Harpy's. While the cost has not been disclosed (at least to any sources I have access to), it is not considered to be "prohibitive" or even "substantial". A single truck-transporter can carry 18 such weapons in canisters, and a battery of 3 can launch 54 of them simultaneously. They will also be expensive--the R&D effort is still required, since what has been postulated is essentially an autonomous attack system that does not currently exist even in the US. But it does exist in the form of an artillery shell that can be fired 40 km away from its target (in the case of weapons against armored vehicles). Why not extend that range to perhaps 100+ km by fusing it onto the body of a UAV (like the one used against radar transmissions)? Third, the number of Patiots that can be made available is not a trivial number--count the number of missiles available in the uploaded canisters of a single battery, not to mention the reminder of its ABL that is accompanying them. How many Patriots are used against incoming artillery shells? Imagine that instead of artillery shells you have hundreds of self-guided UAV's. Even against a Harpy battery (54 incoming vehicles that will loiter until they detonate), what exactly can a Patriot battery do? Now imagine a few hundred more, some targeting AD and others armored vehicles or ships. Finally, we have a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS. Perhaps I'm not informed on the subject, but how many UAV's or CM's have been shot down by heat-seeking MANPADS (ever)? Some UAV's have been lost in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan due to ground fire (AAA), but I've never heard of a confirmed loss due to a MANPAD. Sorry, this just does not look realistic to me. Other posters have taken the more proper tack--don't try to confront the US on conventional terms and instead go the unconventional warfare route--much more likely to at least stand a chance at success of sorts. I'm not trying to get into the mind of every despot in the world. However, many of them invest time and money on conventional programs (like ballistic missiles). Compared to a ballistic missile system, wouldn't a sensor-fused CM be a better investment? If you are talking about a "massive" deployment of such inexpensive weapons, you might not need to concern yourself with those that "miss". Depending on the cost of the vehicles, the total number acquired, and the budget allocated, the user might be satisfied with a success rate well below 100%. I'd be surprised if this approach yielded a system that acheived a success rate that reaches even double digits--for the commitment of significant resources that would have been better used training irregulars and creating caches of weapons and explosives. Irregulars are not going to stop the advance of any regular army (their mission is quite different). What the army of a country needs to do is to target the enemy formations. As was proved once again in Iraq, it is suicidal to stand up against a better equipped and trained military in order to fight a "conventional" war. The speed, accuracy and lethality ( the "punch") cannot be countered with 1960's defensive technology. You can however try to expose any weakness that might exist in the defenses of your superior opponent (much like the Iraqi irregulars tried doing). The Harpy has been around for a while. And in the mean time, technology has progressed and costs of acquisition declined (for commercially available components). Again, there is one heck of a difference between going after an active emitter like an AD radar and passive targets, especially if you are the disadvantaged party in terms if ISR and C-4, which we can bet the opposition would be in such a scenario. How difficult was it for the Iraqi's to know the general geographic position of the US troops? Turning on CNN being one easy way. Imagine if they could send self-targeting systems into the general location from 40 km away (using SMArt), what the US position would be. Obviously the Air Force would have something to target (those nice artillery pieces), so that could not last for long. But what if some regular-looking trucks a few hundred km's away were achieving the same result? In that scenario, all I can do is remember the "Scud hunt" from GW1. Brooks |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |