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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message . .. [snip] 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. The question you should be asking is just who are these people who have these sensors, the software, and the associated hardware to build such weapons? Certainly the Russians and Europeans could do such weapons, China, India, Israel, South Africa, and at a stretch perhaps some South American nations 'might' be capable of attempting such weapons. Being capable of attempting such a project does not imply success nor does it account for changes in behavior of the major powers (read U.S.) As to being a decade away, ask the Indians about how easy it is to develop cruise missiles, fighters or ships. They are credible, who else is? 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. A presumption you make is that the Patriot is the weapon of choice. It may be, then again perhaps a van with lot's of generators and an array of antennae might be the counter measure. Perhaps the counter to the Harpies are some alternative sensor fuzed shell. Maybe, a newer missile (Patriot light if you will) that is much 'dumber' and lower performing hence can be fired in greater numbers is the answer. Your proposition makes sense if you assume your target (the U.S.) stands still. It doesn't. 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)? Name the nations producing sensor fuzed munitions. Certainly the list of nations capable of 'developing' them may be large. But I must reiterate that deciding to develop a munition is not the same as fielding it. [snip --- about use of AA missiles and MANPADS against UAV's and the like] 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. Perhaps, it is largely because UAV's are NOT usually flying low and slow; we do not always know what and how many such UAV's are shot down and because for the U.S. at least it has not been a problem that needed solving. Just who has used these UAV's against the U.S. and how do you know they did not get rendered ineffective (jammed, shot down, performance degraded, control van attacked, etc.) For what it's worth, U.S. UAV's have been acknowleged to have been shot down in Iraq and Afghanistan, they probably were shot down in former Yugoslavia, the Israeli's have probably lost quite a few over Syria and Lebanon and the Indians and Pakistanians regularly lose UAV's. In my opinion they do not represent a golden BB, they are simply another tool. [snip] 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. It was difficult enough that in GW1 Iraqi's regularly had difficulty accurately hitting U.S. forces when they did shoot. Easy enough that though a few SCUDS and their ilk have caused damage, they really haven't been an effective military weapon except in those cases where they forced attrition through diverted forces due to political realities (i.e. keep Israel out of the war.) If it were easy to hit troops with self-targeting systems don't you think the U.S. would be doing it already? --- In principle, yes, such weapons could be developed. That doesn't mean however that any given country has all the bits and pieces, be it software, hardware, experience or otherwise. Also the counter to an asymmetric weapon can easily be just as assymetric. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? One word: Surrender |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"tscottme" wrote in message ... phil hunt wrote in message . .. Crewed by Alien Space Bats, presumably? European or African alien space bats? What is the flight speed of an unladen African alien space bat? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "raymond o'hara" wrote in message news:KM9Eb.580420$Tr4.1558044@attbi_s03... cheap dirty nukes . if you got 'em use 'em At which point your entire country becomes a glowing plain of radioactive glass. Great strategy there but dont give up the day job. It's amazing how many people have forgotten about all the ICBMs that are still laying around. I don't want to find out what it would take to provoke the powers-that-be to actually unleash them. Of course, maybe just one would have the desired effect. Ray Drouillard |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... 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.) Besides that, once the dirty deed has been done, the country that launched them is in really deep s***. Even if they had a bunch of US military weapons that they had managed to buy from the black market, they would do about the same thing as a rock flung at a hornet's nest -- except that the rock flinger wouldn't be able to run away. In the very worst case, the US might have to resort to expending a half dozen or so ICBMs. Realistically, however, I can't see anything more drastic than a few B-52 air raids upon all suspected military posts. Ray Drouillard |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Ash" wrote in message news:mail-F29439.19342618122003@localhost... In article , Timothy Eisele wrote: In rec.arts.sf.science Michael Ash wrote: Well, don't forget that only a very tiny percentage of any regular army will be composed of people fanatical enough to become suicide bombers. Your four-million strong Elbonian People's Happy Army will turn into a handful of suicide bombers and a whole bunch of deserters if you tried that strategy. Not to say it may not be the best use of that army, but I don't think it would be that effective. Which is why the ideal complement to this strategy would be the intensive development of a really effective brainwashing technology. Once your amoral dictatorship has the ability to really deeply convince people on a wholesale basis that the regime is worth dying for, then you're in business. Especially since this will have the useful side benefit of greatly improving your hold on power with the general populace, if you can apply similar technology to them as well. Is 'brainwashing technology' somehow not in the same realm of fantasy as 'magic fairy dust'? I was under the impression that it was something you only found in bad novels and movies. The Islamists are already brainwashing their children. There are kindergarteners who think that the pinnacle of success is to kill Jews by being a suicide bomber. They are already looking forward to the umpteen virgins that will be given to them for their carnal pleasure when the get to Heaven. Ray |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"pervect" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:21:03 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: That is a decent description of the selective availability (SA) function of GPS. SA renders the average (non-US military) receiver incapable of determining a precise fix, and you need precision for the kind of weapons the poster was postulating. SA was shut down a couple of years back so that civil users (i.e., surveyors, commercial aircraft, etc.) could take advantage of its precision (prior to that occuring surveyors had to use what is known as "differential GPS", a more time consuming method of achieving a precise location), but according to the official USG website on the subject it can be reinstituted over a particular region at will. Denying the US use of GPS would have a negative impact on US military capability, but it would not eliminate it. Actually, I don't think SA adversely affects US military systems. Brooks Processors and computing power are getting cheaper every year - and there are a lot of US weapons with military GPS around - so it's conceivable to me that someone could obtain one of these weapons and reverse-engineer the GPS system on them. They can, but the signal is encrypted. The military can change the key at will. In fact, I suspect that the keys are changed at least daily. Even if you know all about the lock, you won't get a thing if you don't have the key. If there is no sort of "auxiliary code input" to the weapon (i.e. some sort of activation code that has to be input) the reverse engineered weapons would work just as well as the US weapons, so the US would have to make the choice of whether it was better for everyone to have (accurate) GPS or nobody to have GPS. Without knowing for sure, I would personally expect that current weapons would have some sort of auxiliary code, and that this code would have to be entered as part of the target programming process (which is quite long according to news reports, though it's getting shorter). I'm sure it's a private key system. The US issues keys (probably 1k bits or more) to all units that need them. Contingency keys are also issued. If someone captures the keys for next month, the contingency keys are used. Ray Drouillard |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:33:33 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote: Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option could be used). While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm their anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100? More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by a B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war? Why would all the missiles have to be launched from the same location? LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities, for potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the same small targets *simultaneously*? The infrastructure and technology for that undertaking would be even more cost prohibitive, but just as futile. Even if they were somehow built and tested (extraordinarily unlikely); again, what would stop *all* of these facilities from being taken out in the first 10 seconds of the war? (And keep in mind that if just a couple of the facilities were disrupted it would exponentially decrease the effectiveness of the entire system). These systems would be nearly impossible to conceal, and would be eliminated right off the bat, if not preemptively during their testing phase (since nothing like this has been built, it would have to be tested thoroughly, and that would be impossible to conceal. From there, it wouldn't take long for US intel to deduce what the intent of such a system is, and order it eliminated). Face it, this is a bad idea. Thomas J. Paladino Jr. New York City |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message ... "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. SMArt is a contemporary of the (since cancelled?) SADARM. Both are terminally guided munitions--emphasis on TERMINALLY. A far cry from being an autonomous hunter/killer system capable of finding a target cluster and then engaging it. You can add the BAT and even the Skeet terminally guided submunitions to this same category, and the US has only recently fielded cluster bombs capable of delivering these (including WCMD variant--CBU-105 IIRC). Great terminal killers--incapable of being wide area hunter killers as this scheme posits. 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. Again, these are not autonomous systems you bring up. If you expect the average second/third world foe to be able to (a) develop a UAV that is capable of performing this kind of autonomous attack, (b) Make it small enough to be survivable and useable in a field environment, while also packing in all of the sensors and computers it needs to get there, and weapons it needs to be lethal once it arrives, (c) Have it retain a significant degree of survivability in the face of US defensive systems, and (d) do all of this over the next ten years; then we are just going to have to disagree, because I don't see all of that coming together until hell freezes over. 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)? TERMINAL guidance only! They do not employ systems capable navigating the delivery vehicle from launch point to attack point (preferably in a survivable mode), of scanning wide areas, detecting a target, classifying it, deciding to attack it, and then executing said attack, OK? BIG difference from what the original poster posited. 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. The likely expeditionary corps will include some 500-1000 Patriots in its ABL, with some one-third of those ready for immediate use. Add in another boatload of Stingers mounted on everything from Avenger and BSFV to the traditional MANPADS mount. What that adds up to is anything but asymetric warfare--it is just about the opposite, with the foe trying to out-tech the US--bad move IMO. As to arty--let 'em fire. First rounds get picked up by the Firefinder radars, and before their first volley has arrived the MLRS and ATACMS are on the way towards smothering their firing locations. The intelligent foe does NOT want to get into an arty duel with US forces--ask the Iraqis who tried that during ODS (those that survived the counter-battery effort, that is). 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. I doubt we know exactly what system has accounted for many of the various UAV losses over the years. Suffice it to say thet the RIM-92 Stinger is capable of engaging both UAV's and CM's (there has been a fair amount of work here in the US on developing the TTP's for use of Avenger specifically in the anti-CM role). 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? Not if they lack the ISR system to be able to get it into the right target box where it can release its SFW's, and that is not a very large footprint that it has to hit. Not if they lack the ability to give the CM a pretty good chance of survival. And most assuredly not if it is to be, as this theory was posited, an autonomous attack system--that is just beyond the capabilities of likely threats during the near-term period under consideration. 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). Sorry, but you are missing the whole concept of asymetric warfare. What you, and the opriginal poster, are proposing is attacking the US military's strengths, not its vulnerabilities--that is not asymetric. It is, however, a good way to acheive martyrdom. 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. You just don't get it--you send all of the SMArt's you want at the "general position" of a ground unit and you will most likely succeed in (a) littering the desert with a lot of wasted SFW's, and (b) open your delivery forces up to immediate, and lethal, return fires. SFW's have to be fired into a position directly over the desired target--not 500 meters this way, or 500 meters that way--right over it. In realtime. Against a moving US force. Use CNN all you want and it is not going to solve those problems. Brooks Brooks |
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 |