asymetric warfare

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).

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:22:52 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

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?

Lets define "middle ranking" and "war" first. India and China are
a far different matter from Pakistan, or SK/NK. Also, what sort of
war are we talking about? A conflict in which the nations governments
survival is at stake, an all out to the death conflit, or something
else?
The first thing you have to consider is that no middle ranking
country could survive an "all out" conflit with the US, which means we
want to avoid tactics that might lead to the conflict transforming
into such a battle. No nukes, bio's, chems, etc. No direct attacks
on the CONUS.



I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.


For china, maybe. Pakistan or Iran or India? less likely. Even
LCCM's are fairly high technology, and 'dead reckoning' isn't as easy
as it sounds. You can't use GPS, because the first thing the U.S.
will do is shut down that ability-- which means some form of inertial
guidence.


LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).

Cheap digistal cameras would be very easy to spoof-- smoke comes
to mind, and if you start going for IR systems, you've just stopped
being "cheap". Also, computer's and programs that can pick out
targets against ground clutter are somewhat more difficult-- note the
fact that even now the U.S. still prefers laser guided missiles, and I
don't believe we have any autonomous weapons like this in stock
(although some are being made ready). The problems are tremendous.



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).

More doable-- but if it isn't an active system, well the ocean is a
very big place. If it is, then it's either expensive, or very easy to
spoof.
As for a swarm, how to you choose targets? If there isn't any
inter-communiation, your entire swarm will attack the first ship it
sees...which usually won't be a major target. If there is inter-UAV
communication, you're back to having a very expensive system that even
the U.S. hasn't quite figured out, and is far beyhond the capabiliies
of most other nations.


Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather
than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over
the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it
to give targetting data for artillery.


Targeting data maybe-- many nations have that. An Autonomous UCAV?
Nope-- for one thing, consider how difficult it woudl be to insure it
doesn't fire on your own units. IFF systems for autonomous UCAV's are
one of the big design blocks.


Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. 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.


The problems is that these weapons wouldn't be "low cost" for other
nations-- they'd be major projects, taking forever because most
mid-range nations that migbht be in conflict with the West don't have
the vast depth of technical expertese we do.
One example-- low cost bombs using GPS and inertial guidence were
developed and fielded by the U.S.-- while the system itself is "low
cost" the effort to develop it is anything but. Low cost loitering
UAV's and cruise missiles are in development-- in the U.S. and UK. I
think maybe China and India might be able to conduct a design effort
like you sugggest, but it woudl be hard for them, and I can't see
other nations, like Pakistan, any African nations, or even smaller
western nations like Austraila, Canada, or Italy being able to even
come close.

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).

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:22:52 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

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?


Concentrate on training and developing a professional officers
corps. No matter the technology if your soldiers are uneducated
draftees who don't want ot be there, and your officers were chosen
for: "Who paid the highest bribe" or "who is least likely to be able
to carry off a coup", you'll get your butt kicked.

Wasn't it pervect who wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:22:52 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

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?

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

How are you getting your position information?

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.

The last I heard, the projected date for the launch of the Galileo Next
Generation Global Navigation Satellite System was some time in 2005, so
after that date there could be an alternative to the American GPS.
However, anyone who's at war with the US is likely to be also disliked
by the Europeans behind Galileo, and might find that they can't get good
readings from either system.

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

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).

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).

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

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).

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).