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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
or up high where the view is better, but also where it becomes easy meat for the layers of Patriots and Avengers fielded by the resident duckhunters, along with any covering Aegis controlled Standards in the littoral zone, and the ubiquitous F-15/F-22 CAP? These missiles might cost abpout $500,000 each whereas the LCCM might cost $10,000 each. Furthermore none of these missile systems are perfectly accurate, thus if many missiles are sent, some would get through. Also, if a missile is small (imagine there are several models) it might be hard for radar to pick it out, or it might have a radar return the same size as a bird's. and, (c) Development of a reliable, compact, onboard sensor suite that provides enough resolution to find likely targets, You can buy good resolution digital cameras in any good camera shop. and a darned intelligent software package to handle target discrimination (from background clutter, earlier posited garbage truck, etc.), There are plenty of people outside the USA who can program computers. and can also recognize an entire range of potential targets and select the one you would want hit from amongst all of them. Sorry, but I don't see ANY potential foes we might face in your near term overcoming one, much less all, of those hurdles, and I am sure I have missed a few more. My understanding is the laws of physics work the same for people in all countries. The second is when the sensor is in one place, and the shooter somewhere else; in those situations, what problems have the USA encountered, and how have they gone about solving them? Then you have to have a good secure datalink, and as it stands now the only folks that are likely to have those during the near-term are us and our good friends. Encryption technology is well-known and software to implement it can be downloaded from the net. Any competent programmer should be able to implement this. The best currently fielded US system of this nature is the SLAM-ER, with ATA--think of an extended range Harpoon with an ability to send its sensor images back to either a launch aircraft or another suitable platform, and which responds to that platform's commands to acheive retargeting or to allow more discriminative targeting. IIRC the new Tactical Tomahawk will also offer an inflight retargeting capability. You will note that the current trend in the US, which is the undeniable leader ins such capabilities, is to retain the man-in-the-loop at present, and that will not significantly change during the period you have set forth, so I seriously doubt Underwhatsistan is going to be able to do any better. The only modern technology necessary to make these missiles possible is computing (both hardware and software). Computing technology is available to any medium sized nation, and merely asserting that the USA must be the most advanced is exactly the sort of hubristic attitude that would help a medium-sized power at war with them. Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense contractors. Because they are more technologically advanced. Some technologies, for example high performance jet engines, require a large industrial base to make. The sort of technologies I'm talking about are ones that can potentially be produced a lot more cheaply, for example by adapting mass-produced (but nevertheless highly sophisticated) consumer products. Any medium-sized power should be able to produce embedded computer control systems. If it was that easy, others would be doing so already--they are not. This is a reasonable argument. Hiowever, people are developing cruise missiles: According to http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1212 "There are currently 161 operational UAV programs in 50 countries" There are probably also a number of secret programs, or programs to add better sensors/computers to existing UAVs/missiles. Heck, look at the Storm Shadow ALCM--a good system, but in no way is it verging on the system brilliance you envision for this asymetric uber-weapon, and Storm Shadow is the best that is offered by our European allies, who are, while generally a bit behind the US power curve in this area, light years ahead of the rest-of-the-world (possible exception of Israel, but if you take the Popeyes we got lynched into buying from them as an example, not too great either). What's thre story with the Popeye? Sorm Shadow/Scalp are already enjoying export success because the rest of the world can't do a better job on their own--the only way they get any capability like what you refer to is by buying from those western industries you rather prematurely wrote off. This is true for now. How long will it be? I predict that within 10 years, many countries will be producing missiles with roughly the same capabilities as Storm Shadow, but at much less cost. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:55:13 GMT, Dionysios Pilarinos wrote:
I think that Phil is probably talking about weapons like the IAI Harpy. Harpy is an anti-radar weapon; I wasn't specifically thinking of that sort of weapon, but in general its one of the things I had in mind: something that can loiter looking for targets. I'm thinking of a whole family of cruise missiles, with different sizes (and therefore ranges and payloads). There would be different sensors as well, buth I expect they would all include digital cameras and associated image processing software. 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). This is mostly a software problem. There are programmers in all middle-ranking countries. All of the ones I listed (in my other post) have plenty of programmers. 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. Countering sensors on the cruise missile might be difficult. Lasers might work. 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%. If they can be mass-produced for $10,000 each, then a $1 bn procurement -- and the sort of countries we're talking about typically sign bigger weapons contracts than that -- would buy 100,000 missiles. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:22:34 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
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 problems listed above are information-processing problems, that is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really competent programms can be many times more productive than how software is traditionally written. I've worked as a programmer for defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was written right, it could probably be done with several orders of magnitude more efficiency. 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). Most ground vehicles radiate visible lightr, at least during daytime. At light they radiate IR, which can bre picked up with similar sensors. 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. Wrong. The complexity is in the *software*. CM hardware can be -- and historically has been -- put together by unskilled slave labour in squalid conditions. They will also be expensive--the R&D effort is still required, Yes. But once software has been written once (and we're talking millions not billions of dollars) it can be duplicated at zero cost. since what has been postulated is essentially an autonomous attack system that does not currently exist even in the US. 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. Do you have actual numbers here? Finally, we have a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS. It would be quite easy for an attack by lots of cruise missiles to overload the defences at a point. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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? -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:04:21 -0800, pervect wrote:
How are you getting your position information? A combination of dead reckoning, a ground-based LORAN-type system, celestial navigation, and visual/IR identification of the target in the end phase. The cheap solution is to use GPS. But IIRC the US has complete control over the GPS satellite system. So if you are at war with the US, you can't count on your GPS working right. Indeed. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:32:11 -0800, pervect wrote:
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. If there is no sort of "auxiliary code input" to the weapon (i.e. some sort of activation code that has to be input) I would imagine there is and the USA has the ability to change the codes from time to time. I would be very surprised if this is not the case. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
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 |