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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote: 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. If we are talking about a swarm of UAVs, shooting them down with Helos is way too slow. And you better pray the UAVs don't carry Stingers or something similar, helos are sitting ducks... |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Jack Linthicum wrote: wrote: 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? Did you notice this is a Russian news agency reporting on what an Iranian spokesman said? Thanks for pointing that out. It was wondering how it was known to have been circling for 25 minutes, if it was undetected. -- FF |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote in message ps.com... 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. As a software engineer I'd suggest you are wrong. If such recognition is so easy how did an Argentine aircrew drop bombs on an American tanker in 1982 believing it was a RN Carrier ? A UAV with realtime video image recognition and IR sensors is unlikely to be especially cheap 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. With real time image recognition systens cheap will be quite a trick. 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. But not small enough to be invisible 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. Thats just software and rather easier to do than deciding if that 1000 ft long ship is a carrier or VLCC 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. Earth Calling Planet Esteban - a UAV with 200kg warhead and 8-12 sub missiles will be neither small nor cheap. 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, And you are now propsing sophisticated, costly and probably unreliable. 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'. But with real time image recognition, organic SEAD and large warheads DUH ! 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 =---- |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Jack Linthicum wrote: wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: ... The mention was of swarms which implies swarms of signals not necessarily, if mostly autonomous UAVs are used 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. Ever heard of fiber optics communications? Set-up multiple cheap antennas for communication, and link them with fiber optics to your safe hidden command centre. Why you guys always assume that the bad boys are dumb beyond recognition alludes me... What the hell is an autonomous UAV? An UAV that can fly itself using an autopilot (see cruise missiles) to predefined destination, look around and try to see and identify ships and perhaps asks the controller for help in making crucial decisions (attack/ignore/move elsewehere). and to what purpose? Increase survivablilty/success of the system. Little, low bandwidth communication = difficult to detect & jam. You need a unique signal for each aircraft otherwise they will all turn left at the same time. You are still thinking 'remote controlled airplane'. Think 'remote command'. The UAVs are capable of flying themselves, they just might need advice from time to time. You don't tell each single aircraft what to do exactly, you just send a message to the whole swarm: "20% of you attack the ship, priorities ar A,B,C, the rest go to box [X,Y] and search for targets there" Each UAV rolls a dice, if it is in the 20%, it rolls a dice to choose among the identifiable targets on the ship (phased arrays, CIWS radars, bridge, aircraft on deck, catapult). They actual flying and execution of the commands is done autonomously. (It will be a bit more complicated, but this is the basic idea.) On the first shot you may hit a bunch of decoys but also the target or targets. Especially if the decoys must be deployed under the control of the central command. Second time the decoys may stay on and the command freqs shut down. Third time no one cares and fires enough weapons to take care of the site and the decoys. No decoys needed. The UAVs themselves are cheap enough so that would be waste. Perhpas you can have a hi/lo mix of UAVs with high end sensors/UAVs with cheapo sensors (as the sensors are likely the costliest part of the UAV), the cheapo UAVs acting as a sort of decoys (but still being able to inflict damage, just with a bit lower probability.) I have heard of fiber optic communications, those antennas will still radiate With autonomous UAVs, the radiation will be intermittent and low bandwidth. Using spread spectrum/frequency agility or whatever, it will be difficult to pick up out of the noise. And antennas are cheap and you can have plenty of them.... and believe it or not the U.S. military can figure out where the command point is physically. :-) Like they had sooo much intelligence on WMD in Iraq. Or their capability to take out Serbian tanks/guns/command centers. ;-) Somehow I don't think Iran is a country in which USA has a lot of good humint.... And tt's not like you need an air conditioned bunker holding 100s of people and computers, anywhere in the vicinity where you can connect to your fiber network is good enough. The squad doing the control might decide themselves in the morning of the attack where they want to be, not even their superiors need to know... The bad guys do not have to be smart or dumb, they will be overwhelmed by the amount of crap the U.S. can throw at tem. You know, never underestimate your adversary... Somehow, the Serbian military was not particularly overwhelmed, the civilian infrastructure was.... It's the occupation afterwards that is the sticking point. Well, I don't think US will be dumb enough to try to occupy Iran. But with Dubya you never know.... |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 06:23 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 |