asymetric warfare

"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.

"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

"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?

"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

"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

"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

"pervect" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't know the details of the system (one reason I'm free to post) -
but the absolute best case I can see is for you to force the US to
basically shut off the GPS system everywhere. Depending on your
weapons range, you may be able to force GPS nullification only in a
limited area (the US can probably scramble the timing when the
satellites are over the area threatened by your weapons, while leaving
the timing intact when the satellites are over "safe" areas.

Denying the US use of GPS would have a negative impact on US military
capability, but it would not eliminate it.

Even if the non-encrypted civilian access GPS is turned off, the
military system will work fine.



From a terrorist POV - naw, it's pretty obvious, but I'll defer
comment, no sense in making life easy for them.

"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

"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

"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