asymetric warfare

Bernardz wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Bernardz wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: :
: : We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
: :
: :Never said it would be invisible.
: :
: :What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
: :aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.
:
: And why is that?
:
:Missiles and artillery are hitting the city. We must move immediately.

So, as the Elbonian leader, upon the start of a US invasion you are
going to missile your own people on the presumption that US forces
will commit suicide to save your people from you? Pretty unlikely.

: :The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
: :because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
: :early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.
:
: That's because they were trying to blunt an attack on themselves.
: What is going to give the US such time-urgency in an invasion of
: Elbonia that they won't take the time to clear the obviously visible
: air defences first?
:
:As above

As above, indeed. Your anti-aircraft defenses, not being invisible,
will be taken out BEFORE the US goes into your cities, so you must be
assuming that launching all your magic cruise missiles at your own
defenseless civilians will someone convince the US to endanger its own
people. Not likely.

: : and lots of deep
: : caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
: :
: :These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.
:
: Oh, really? So where can I buy a few thousand of these $10k cruise
: missiles,
:
:I would suggest that any medium size country could put something
:together.

And I would suggest that said medium sized country would need a fair
number of wizards to produce that much magic.

: with their precision guidance, terminal radar homing, spread
: spectrum datalinks, etc?
:
:To hit a city large you don't need any of this. All a V1 had was a
:simple revolution meter. Of those not shot down half hit London. I am
:sure a rather simple device could now be constructed that could do a
:better job.

So your answer to US invasion is what is essentially a random missile
attack on your own cities? And you think this will stop a US
invasion? And of course, all third world nations have cities the size
of London and its environs.

I will note that most folks think that V1 attacks on London were a
waste of effort for Germany that could have been applied elsewhere. I
will further note that for the thousands of V1 and V2 weapons fired at
Britain, relatively few people were killed by them. And yet you
somehow expect all these installations to go unnoticed before you get
invaded and these weapons to somehow effectively target US forces in
preference to the vast majority of civilians in cities (assuming, of
course, that the US forces stay in your cities rather than building
their own basecamps) or else that attacking your own cities as the US
comes in will somehow convince the US forces to simply suicide.

: : You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
: : build weapons.
: :
: :Tell me?
:
: Very.
:
: Now, if you want to change the rules of the game and play 'North
: Korea', that's a different matter.

At this point I have to ask - what ARE you smoking?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

(George William Herbert) writes:

John Schilling wrote:
[...]
Invoking the Asymmetric Warfare buzzword does nothing to counter those
capabilities. It isn't clear that they even *can* be countered, save
in kind, but if it is possible it will involve a whole slew of very
hard problems in its own right, and that the amateurish solutions
posited here are not going to cut it.

Pushback. While you are generally correct... I think that some of
the enthusiasts here are not paying enough attention either to
details or to the big picture... I believe that there are some
unconventional and asymmetrical things which could be done which
would severely hamper western style warfare.

One of the things which could be done looks a lot like one of the
things under discussion here. There are many others, and the
overall strategy of defense by and only by massive cheap cruise
missiles is a grand scale loser, but as part of doing a lot of
other things it might well be a viable strategy component.


Yes, but even there it's important not to get caught up in the
game of winning the last war, designing the optimal force package
and tactical doctrine to defeat the US Military of 2003.

Because, e.g., cruise missile swarms are not going to be effectively
fielded without an extensive period of R&D, testing, procurement,
training, and deployment, which will be noticed and which will mean
you only get to use the cruise missile swarms against a US Military
that has accomodated itself to the idea of being hit by cruise missile
swarms.

So it's not enough to have a cheap guidance package that can distinguish
a tank from a rock, you now have to distinguish a tank from an inflatable
tank decoy. The United States Army of 2003 doesn't use inflatable decoys
because nobody has a precision deep strike capability against it, but if
an adversary changes the latter, the former is going to change as well.

Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

grrr. I hate all these crossposts. Are they really necessary?

(John Schilling) wrote in message

Yes, but even there it's important not to get caught up in the
game of winning the last war, designing the optimal force package
and tactical doctrine to defeat the US Military of 2003.

This is definitely true. Defeating the US Military of 2003 would
be one thing. Defeating the US military of the time period that
it took to be able to develop the technology to defeat of the US
military of 2003 would be a different story altogether.

So it's not enough to have a cheap guidance package that can distinguish
a tank from a rock, you now have to distinguish a tank from an inflatable
tank decoy. The United States Army of 2003 doesn't use inflatable decoys
because nobody has a precision deep strike capability against it, but if
an adversary changes the latter, the former is going to change as well.

Actually, I'm willing to bet that by the time that the R&D is done for
the cheap and effective cruise missiles is completed that the US
military
will have trotted out a very effective defense already. In fact, if I
am
not mistaken, they're working on it already.

"Next," Wilson said, "we're going after mortars."

http://www.ausa.org/www/news.nsf/0/0...t&Auto Framed
(THEL shot down a 152mm in the article)

LLNL is working on the 100+ kw solid state laser prototype for HELSTF
as we speak. (http://www.llnl.gov/nif/lst/helstf.html) At that point
it gets cheaper to knock down the cheap but effective cruise missiles
than it does to make them. After all, it's just the cost of the
gasoline
(or kerosene if its a turbine and prolly would be) to power the
laser...

First couple generations I'd expect the lasers to be in dedicated AA
platforms. After that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they
proliferated
into the slot of the AA .50 cal on tanks. assuming they still have
MBTs
around then, of course.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-03k.html

I have my very strong doubts that a chemical laser will make its way
onto the battlefield, at least in an armored vehicle. I can't see
soldiers embracing something that if the tanks get blow open by
artillery
or mines will wipe out a company easy...flourine bad. Very bad.

Will


--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
(George William Herbert) writes:

John Schilling wrote:

Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.

I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
might as well send in F-15s??

Damo - who would much rather read a discussion about cheap(ish) cruise
missiles then trying to defeat the US on the battlefield. This is a science
based group, not fantasy.



--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"Damo" wrote:

:"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
:
: Likewise, if your idea is that it doesn't matter how easy an individual
: missile is to find and kill because you are going to saturate US/NATO
: style air defenses with numbers, you don't match it against the present
: standard of an F-15 with four each AMRAAMs and Sidewinders but against
: an F-22 packed to the limit with air-to-air Stingers; fourty-five stowed
: kills at 0.8 Pk per shot, if my math is correct.
:
:I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
:air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
:might as well send in F-15s??

I think you're both wrong.

1) When did Stinger get cleared for carriage in an F-22 (and in such
ridiculous quantities, too)? That would be merely insane, since the
Stinger isn't even an air-to-air weapon (and you certainly couldn't
jam 45 of them in anywhere and be able to shoot them).

2) The F-22 carries 8 AAM rounds internally in pure air to air trim:
6 AIM-120C in the main weapons bay and an AIM-9X in each side bay.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

William Baird wrote:
First couple generations I'd expect the lasers to be in dedicated AA
platforms. After that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they
proliferated
into the slot of the AA .50 cal on tanks. assuming they still have
MBTs
around then, of course.

My prediction is that laser weapons will really take off when a
practical, high efficiency, high repetition rate short pulsed
(nanosecond or less) laser with a reasonable energy per pulse (say about
a joule) is available. By high efficiency, I mean comparable to today's
chemical and solid state CW lasers, around 10% to 30% or better, not the
piddly 1% efficiency we get with solid state lasers operating with
flashlamps.

Why pulsed lasers? Short pulses cause damage to the target through
mechanical means (induced by the violent expansion of the solid density
plasma created by the pulse) rather than thermal. This is two to three
orders of magnitude more efficient at causing structural damage than
direct vaporization. The high repetition rate specified (several
kilohertz or faster) will allow you to blast holes though things quickly
compared to the relatively slow burning of CW lasers.

We still have a way to go to get lasers of this performance, however (or
if we don't, no one is talking about it). At the rate at which laser
technology is advancing, though, it will probably not be too long before
the military has these toys to play with.

Luke

In article ,
"Damo" wrote:

I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the F-22 can only carry 4
air-to-air missiles, if it carries more it loses what stealth it had and you
might as well send in F-15s??

Six AIM-120C in the center bay plus two Sidewinders in the side bays.

Or two AIM-120C + 2 JDAMs in the center bay and two Sidewinders in the
side bays.

If they go with external tanks and missiles, they get another four
AIM-120s and another 1200 gallons of fuel, but they lose stealth if they
do that.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
says...
Bernardz wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Bernardz wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: :
: : We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
: :
: :Never said it would be invisible.
: :
: :What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
: :aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.
:
: And why is that?
:
:Missiles and artillery are hitting the city. We must move immediately.

So, as the Elbonian leader, upon the start of a US invasion you are
going to missile your own people on the presumption that US forces
will commit suicide to save your people from you? Pretty unlikely.

(a)
I never said my own people. I said some neighbour that is an ally of the
US.

We talking of deterring the US. If it came to use. I think we would
agree it would be suicide. Worst case in use is that the US would say
how terrible and we are sorry.





: :The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
: :because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
: :early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.
:
: That's because they were trying to blunt an attack on themselves.
: What is going to give the US such time-urgency in an invasion of
: Elbonia that they won't take the time to clear the obviously visible
: air defences first?
:
:As above

As above, indeed. Your anti-aircraft defenses, not being invisible,
will be taken out BEFORE the US goes into your cities, so you must be
assuming that launching all your magic cruise missiles at your own
defenseless civilians will someone convince the US to endanger its own
people. Not likely.

As (a) above


: : and lots of deep
: : caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
: :
: :These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.
:
: Oh, really? So where can I buy a few thousand of these $10k cruise
: missiles,
:
:I would suggest that any medium size country could put something
:together.

And I would suggest that said medium sized country would need a fair
number of wizards to produce that much magic.

No. Germany in WW2 could do it almost 60 years ago. Even the
Palestinians today have managed to put together some similar type
system.


: with their precision guidance, terminal radar homing, spread
: spectrum datalinks, etc?
:
:To hit a city large you don't need any of this. All a V1 had was a
:simple revolution meter. Of those not shot down half hit London. I am
:sure a rather simple device could now be constructed that could do a
:better job.

So your answer to US invasion is what is essentially a random missile
attack on your own cities? And you think this will stop a US
invasion? And of course, all third world nations have cities the size
of London and its environs.

As (a) above


I will note that most folks think that V1 attacks on London were a
waste of effort for Germany that could have been applied elsewhere. I
will further note that for the thousands of V1 and V2 weapons fired at
Britain, relatively few people were killed by them.

Look at the thread London Blitz vs V1. Most people do not seem to be
saying that at all.

And yet you
somehow expect all these installations to go unnoticed before you get
invaded and these weapons to somehow effectively target US forces in
preference to the vast majority of civilians in cities (assuming, of
course, that the US forces stay in your cities rather than building
their own basecamps) or else that attacking your own cities as the US
comes in will somehow convince the US forces to simply suicide.


Never said that.



: : You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
: : build weapons.
: :
: :Tell me?
:
: Very.
:
: Now, if you want to change the rules of the game and play 'North
: Korea', that's a different matter.

At this point I have to ask - what ARE you smoking?


Give me time. New year eve is just about to start now. Have a good one.
Actually I don't think overall we are that far apart.

If they don't deter the US this country is dead.

--
Above all wish for a healthy year

25th saying of Bernard

Bernardz wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Bernardz wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: : Bernardz wrote:
: :
: : :In article ,
: : says...
: : :
: : : We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
: : :
: : :Never said it would be invisible.
: : :
: : :What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
: : :aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.
: :
: : And why is that?
: :
: :Missiles and artillery are hitting the city. We must move immediately.
:
: So, as the Elbonian leader, upon the start of a US invasion you are
: going to missile your own people on the presumption that US forces
: will commit suicide to save your people from you? Pretty unlikely.
:
a)
:I never said my own people. I said some neighbour that is an ally of the
:US.

You're assuming that one exists and that it has high value targets in
range of your cheap magical cruise missiles. Such situations are
going to be rare - probably limited to being North Korea.

You're also assuming that attacking your neighbor unprovoked is
somehow going to win you points somewhere.

: And I would suggest that said medium sized country would need a fair
: number of wizards to produce that much magic.
:
:No. Germany in WW2 could do it almost 60 years ago. Even the
:Palestinians today have managed to put together some similar type
:system.

Cite? Because I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all
anymore.

: I will note that most folks think that V1 attacks on London were a
: waste of effort for Germany that could have been applied elsewhere. I
: will further note that for the thousands of V1 and V2 weapons fired at
: Britain, relatively few people were killed by them.
:
:Look at the thread London Blitz vs V1. Most people do not seem to be
:saying that at all.

I'd suggest you get an education on this somewhere other than Usenet.
History books would be a good start.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article , LukeCampbell
wrote:

Why pulsed lasers? Short pulses cause damage to the target through
mechanical means (induced by the violent expansion of the solid
density plasma created by the pulse) rather than thermal. This is
two to three orders of magnitude more efficient at causing structural
damage than direct vaporization. The high repetition rate specified
(several kilohertz or faster) will allow you to blast holes though
things quickly compared to the relatively slow burning of CW lasers.

You also have some problems with ionization of the air in some
conditions, degrading the beam.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.