Solomon Islands intervention force

[David Bromage]

Does anybody know exactly which units are going to the Solomon Islands?
The Defence media releases haven't contained much detail, other than the
Australian infantry contingent will be from the 3rd Brigade. The
Solomons government did ask for the SAS, but I take it they're not doing.

I know HMAS Manoora sailed is leaving today and the airlift of police
will begin on Thursday.

What units are New Zealand, PNG, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga sending?

Cheers
David

[David Bromage]

The Defence media release suggests it will be 2RAR providing the bulk of
the Australian combat force.

Cheers
David

[David Bromage]

Tuesday, 22 July 2003 97/2003

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES DEPLOYING TO SOLOMONS

The Australian Defence Force will deploy for the first time on
operations four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as part of the regional
assistance mission to the Solomon Islands, Defence Minister Robert Hill
announced today.

"This is the first deployment of an unmanned aerial vehicle on
operations by the Australian Defence Force," Senator Hill said.

"It represents a significant advance in the development of our network
centric warfare capabilities."

Senator Hill said the Australian designed and built Aerosonde aircraft,
operated by SAAB Australia, would be equipped with day and night sensors
and communications equipment.

They will be capable of conducting surveillance of the Solomon Islands
remote areas and coastlines, providing images to military personnel on
the ground and headquarters staff.

"Incorporating this new technology in the regional assistance will give
the ADF an edge in its support to police assisting the Solomon Islands
Government to restore law and order," Senator Hill said.

"Soldiers and their commanders will have real-time information about
potential risks for the police."

The aircraft are part of a developmental program, Project Nervana, being
run by the DSTO. The project is looking at many aspects of automating
the battlefield. This includes the examination of how images from the
UAVs can be distributed to commanders on the ground, providing a real
time surveillance capability.

The detachment will be commanded by 131 Surveillance and Target
Acquisition (131 STA) Battery which has responsibility for developing
Army's UAV procedures. The UAVs will be operated and supported by Army
scientists, engineers and other support personnel as well as Defence
Scientists from DSTO.

[MPA]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:11:22 +1000, David Bromage
> wrote:

>Tuesday, 22 July 2003 97/2003
>
>UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES DEPLOYING TO SOLOMONS

Great news !

Love my UAV

Dave
Melbourne RAPV
(small UAV class - remote aerial photography and video)
http://birdcagesoft.com.au/heli/index.html

[Eric J. Whitney]

David Bromage wrote:

> Tuesday, 22 July 2003 97/2003
>
> UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES DEPLOYING TO SOLOMONS
>
> The Australian Defence Force will deploy for the first time on
> operations four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as part of the regional
> assistance mission to the Solomon Islands, Defence Minister Robert Hill
> announced today.
>
> "This is the first deployment of an unmanned aerial vehicle on
> operations by the Australian Defence Force," Senator Hill said.
>
> "It represents a significant advance in the development of our network
> centric warfare capabilities."
>
> Senator Hill said the Australian designed and built Aerosonde aircraft,
> operated by SAAB Australia, would be equipped with day and night sensors
> and communications equipment.
>

[... snip ...]

Yes, I saw the presentation given by Aerosonde at the conference just
completed here ( www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/UAV-MMNT3 ). It looks like a
very capable and practical package. I wish them well.

Eric

[Mainlander]

In article >,
says...
> David Bromage > wrote in message >...
> > Does anybody know exactly which units are going to the Solomon Islands?
> > The Defence media releases haven't contained much detail, other than the
> > Australian infantry contingent will be from the 3rd Brigade. The
> > Solomons government did ask for the SAS, but I take it they're not doing.
> >
> > I know HMAS Manoora sailed is leaving today and the airlift of police
> > will begin on Thursday.
> >
> > What units are New Zealand, PNG, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga sending?
> >
>
> From the NZ Defence Minister site
> http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.cfm?DocumentID=17308
> "...
> Police Minister George Hawkins said 35 Police officers, including the
> 10 officers currently in the Solomons, would be deployed for two
> years, although there may be some phased reduction in numbers over
> that period.
>
> Defence Minister Mark Burton said 105 Defence Force personnel would be
> deployed in support. The contingent will consist of four helicopters
> and associated personnel; headquarters support staff, logistics,
> communications, an engineering element and a small medical group. An
> infantry company will also be placed on standby to assist if required.
> ..."

How do they fly them there. They used an AN-124 to get most of the
choppers back from Timor.

[RT]

Eric J. Whitney wrote in message >...
>David Bromage wrote:
>
>> Tuesday, 22 July 2003 97/2003
>>
>> UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES DEPLOYING TO SOLOMONS
>>
>> The Australian Defence Force will deploy for the first time on
>> operations four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as part of the regional
>> assistance mission to the Solomon Islands, Defence Minister Robert Hill
>> announced today.
>>
>> "This is the first deployment of an unmanned aerial vehicle on
>> operations by the Australian Defence Force," Senator Hill said.
>>
>> "It represents a significant advance in the development of our network
>> centric warfare capabilities."
>>
>> Senator Hill said the Australian designed and built Aerosonde aircraft,
>> operated by SAAB Australia, would be equipped with day and night sensors
>> and communications equipment.
>>
>
>[... snip ...]
>
>Yes, I saw the presentation given by Aerosonde at the conference just
>completed here ( www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/UAV-MMNT3 ). It looks like a
>very capable and practical package. I wish them well.

I loved this bit:

"In addition, although efficient forms are found during the flaps- down
case, it is
shown how an occasional modeling limitation of the solver can precipitate
spurious results."

Chortle - that last phrase is priceless :-) :-)

Don't worry mate - you can always sell it as a random number generator :-)

[Coop]

RT wrote:

> Eric J. Whitney wrote in message >...
> >David Bromage wrote:
> >
> >> Tuesday, 22 July 2003 97/2003
> >>
> >> UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES DEPLOYING TO SOLOMONS
> >>
> >> The Australian Defence Force will deploy for the first time on
> >> operations four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as part of the regional
> >> assistance mission to the Solomon Islands, Defence Minister Robert Hill
> >> announced today.
> >>
> >> "This is the first deployment of an unmanned aerial vehicle on
> >> operations by the Australian Defence Force," Senator Hill said.
> >>
> >> "It represents a significant advance in the development of our network
> >> centric warfare capabilities."
> >>
> >> Senator Hill said the Australian designed and built Aerosonde aircraft,
> >> operated by SAAB Australia, would be equipped with day and night sensors
> >> and communications equipment.
> >>
> >
> >[... snip ...]
> >
> >Yes, I saw the presentation given by Aerosonde at the conference just
> >completed here ( www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/UAV-MMNT3 ). It looks like a
> >very capable and practical package. I wish them well.
>
> I loved this bit:
>
> "In addition, although efficient forms are found during the flaps- down
> case, it is
> shown how an occasional modeling limitation of the solver can precipitate
> spurious results."
>
> Chortle - that last phrase is priceless :-) :-)
>
> Don't worry mate - you can always sell it as a random number generator :-)

In short, it crashed....?

Coop

[Errol Cavit]

Mainlander <*@*.*> wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
<snip>
> >
> > From the NZ Defence Minister site
> > http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.cfm?DocumentID=17308
> > "...
> > Police Minister George Hawkins said 35 Police officers, including the
> > 10 officers currently in the Solomons, would be deployed for two
> > years, although there may be some phased reduction in numbers over
> > that period.
> >
> > Defence Minister Mark Burton said 105 Defence Force personnel would be
> > deployed in support. The contingent will consist of four helicopters
> > and associated personnel; headquarters support staff, logistics,
> > communications, an engineering element and a small medical group. An
> > infantry company will also be placed on standby to assist if required.
> > ..."
>
> How do they fly them there.

From
www.airforce.mil.nz/latestinfo/mediareleases/mediacontent.cfm?article_id=216

"DEPARTURE OF FIRST NZDF CONTINGENT TO THE SOLOMON ISLANDS
Release Date 22 July 2003
The first contingent of NZDF personnel will depart from Ohakea for the
Solomon Islands on an Air Force Hercules on Wednesday 23 July at 10:30
am. The first flight will comprise 18 Defence Force personnel and an
Iroquois helicopter. This group also includes the New Zealand Senior
National Officer and the Air Component Commander for the operation.
The aircraft will route through Townsville and is scheduled to arrive
in Honiara at 1:10pm local time on Thursday 24 July.

Mark Burton, Minister of Defence and Major General Martyn Dunne,
Commander Joint Forces New Zealand will farewell the deploying
personnel at Ohakea.

A further eight Hercules flights will deploy the rest of the New
Zealand contingent between 24 Jul and 1 Aug 2003. "


> They used an AN-124 to get most of the
> choppers back from Timor.

They may have used an AN-124 when the detachment was withdrawn, but
the individual helicopters were regularly swapped back to NZ during
the course of the deployment, by Herc. White Hueys were a common sight
from my place (Te Atatu) as they like training over water - you are
allowed to fly lower than you can over urban areas in a single engined
chopper. The RNZAF got an exemption to the normal UN rules that all
helicopters must be painted white, as it would have required an
unreasonable number of repaints. IIRC, the deal was that at least two
of those deployed would be white.

Per this morning's Herald piece:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3514159

"The contingent would be housed in tents initially and would carry
enough weapons, kit, food and water to last 14 days, he said.

The helicopters would be brought back to New Zealand once a month for
major servicing. "

Cheers
Errol Cavit

[Eric J. Whitney]

Coop wrote:

> RT wrote:
>
> > Eric J. Whitney wrote in message >...
> > >David Bromage wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tuesday, 22 July 2003 97/2003
> > >>
> > >> UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES DEPLOYING TO SOLOMONS
> > >>
> > >> The Australian Defence Force will deploy for the first time on
> > >> operations four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as part of the regional
> > >> assistance mission to the Solomon Islands, Defence Minister Robert Hill
> > >> announced today.
> > >>
> > >> "This is the first deployment of an unmanned aerial vehicle on
> > >> operations by the Australian Defence Force," Senator Hill said.
> > >>
> > >> "It represents a significant advance in the development of our network
> > >> centric warfare capabilities."
> > >>
> > >> Senator Hill said the Australian designed and built Aerosonde aircraft,
> > >> operated by SAAB Australia, would be equipped with day and night sensors
> > >> and communications equipment.
> > >>
> > >
> > >[... snip ...]
> > >
> > >Yes, I saw the presentation given by Aerosonde at the conference just
> > >completed here ( www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/UAV-MMNT3 ). It looks like a
> > >very capable and practical package. I wish them well.
> >
> > I loved this bit:
> >
> > "In addition, although efficient forms are found during the flaps- down
> > case, it is
> > shown how an occasional modeling limitation of the solver can precipitate
> > spurious results."
> >
> > Chortle - that last phrase is priceless :-) :-)
> >
> > Don't worry mate - you can always sell it as a random number generator :-)
>
> In short, it crashed....?
>
> Coop

Hardy har har. The comedy level around here is priceless. No, it didn't crash
and no, I'm not going to sell it as a random number generator.

Just for that, I'm not sending either of you a copy of the full paper.

Hmph.

Eric

[Bushy]

<clip>
> Just for that, I'm not sending either of you a copy of the full paper.
>
;<)
Peter

[Alan Lothian]

In article >, Errol
Cavit > wrote:


<snippaggio>

> Mark Burton, Minister of Defence and Major General Martyn Dunne,
> Commander Joint Forces New Zealand will farewell the deploying
> personnel at Ohakea.

Is this "farewell" verb some new antipodean wickedness? We need to
know, Errol. "We sure farewelled them Hussein sons of bitches..."

It must be headed off at the pass.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

[L'acrobat]

"Alan Lothian" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Errol
> Cavit > wrote:
>
>
> <snippaggio>
>
> > Mark Burton, Minister of Defence and Major General Martyn Dunne,
> > Commander Joint Forces New Zealand will farewell the deploying
> > personnel at Ohakea.
>
> Is this "farewell" verb some new antipodean wickedness? We need to
> know, Errol. "We sure farewelled them Hussein sons of bitches..."
>

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: 3fare·well
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1580
chiefly Australian & New Zealand : to bid farewell to

[David Bromage]

First on the ground was C Company, 2RAR. Anybody know how many Hercs are
involved in the airlift? I did notice that a chartered Qantas 767
(VH-OGO) took most of the police and other civilians.

Photos of the landing on Red Beach:
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/2003/07/24/1058853177265.html

Patrol boat HMAS Whyalla and landing craft HMAS Wewak and HMAS Labuan
are leaving Cairns for the SOlomons some time today.

Cheers
David

[RT]

Eric J. Whitney wrote in message >...
>Coop wrote:
>
>> RT wrote:
>>
>> > Eric J. Whitney wrote in message
>...
>> > >David Bromage wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Tuesday, 22 July 2003 97/2003
>> > >>
>> > >> UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES DEPLOYING TO SOLOMONS
>> > >>
>> > >> The Australian Defence Force will deploy for the first time on
>> > >> operations four Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as part of the
regional
>> > >> assistance mission to the Solomon Islands, Defence Minister Robert
Hill
>> > >> announced today.
>> > >>
>> > >> "This is the first deployment of an unmanned aerial vehicle on
>> > >> operations by the Australian Defence Force," Senator Hill said.
>> > >>
>> > >> "It represents a significant advance in the development of our
network
>> > >> centric warfare capabilities."
>> > >>
>> > >> Senator Hill said the Australian designed and built Aerosonde
aircraft,
>> > >> operated by SAAB Australia, would be equipped with day and night
sensors
>> > >> and communications equipment.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >[... snip ...]
>> > >
>> > >Yes, I saw the presentation given by Aerosonde at the conference just
>> > >completed here ( www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/UAV-MMNT3 ). It looks like
a
>> > >very capable and practical package. I wish them well.
>> >
>> > I loved this bit:
>> >
>> > "In addition, although efficient forms are found during the flaps- down
>> > case, it is
>> > shown how an occasional modeling limitation of the solver can
precipitate
>> > spurious results."
>> >
>> > Chortle - that last phrase is priceless :-) :-)
>> >
>> > Don't worry mate - you can always sell it as a random number generator
:-)
>>
>> In short, it crashed....?
>>
>> Coop
>
>Hardy har har. The comedy level around here is priceless. No, it didn't
crash
>and no, I'm not going to sell it as a random number generator.
>
>Just for that, I'm not sending either of you a copy of the full paper.
>
>Hmph.


Now, now, now - no need to spit le dummy (s******...... :-)

[RT]

The Raven wrote in message ...
>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the point
>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>capable of.

Yair. Well.

Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a severe
problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average anti-aircraft/G-A
missile radar......

In fact the Aerosonde site in general would do credit to your average
snake-oil salesman - heavy on the hype and VERY light on on the numbers.

[matt weber]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, "RT" > wrote:

>
>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the point
>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>capable of.
>
>Yair. Well.
>
>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a severe
>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average anti-aircraft/G-A
>missile radar......
>
30 watts RMS is more than enought to disrupt most airborne radars.
remember the radar duty cycles are very very short, typically less
then .1%, so the ERP from 30 watts rms could easily be in the tens of
kilowatts.

Ground based fire control radars are another story. Those things
often have ERP's of several hundred megawatts. They are designed to
burn through almost any kind of intereference.

[RT]

matt weber wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, "RT" > wrote:
>
>>
>>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the
point
>>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>>capable of.
>>
>>Yair. Well.
>>
>>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a severe
>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average
anti-aircraft/G-A
>>missile radar......
>>
>30 watts RMS is more than enought to disrupt most airborne radars.
>remember the radar duty cycles are very very short, typically less
>then .1%, so the ERP from 30 watts rms could easily be in the tens of
>kilowatts.
>
> Ground based fire control radars are another story. Those things
>often have ERP's of several hundred megawatts. They are designed to
>burn through almost any kind of intereference.


Erm... I DID say..:-
"I have a severe
problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average anti-aircraft/G-A
missile radar......"

Are you suggesting anti-aircraft/G-A missile radars are airborne?

Or do you think they might be "Ground based fire control radars" which
"are another story"?

[matt weber]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:37:19 +1000, "RT" > wrote:

>
>matt weber wrote in message ...
>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, "RT" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the
>point
>>>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>>>capable of.
>>>
>>>Yair. Well.
>>>
>>>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>>>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>>>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a severe
>>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average
>anti-aircraft/G-A
>>>missile radar......
>>>
>>30 watts RMS is more than enought to disrupt most airborne radars.
>>remember the radar duty cycles are very very short, typically less
>>then .1%, so the ERP from 30 watts rms could easily be in the tens of
>>kilowatts.
>>
>> Ground based fire control radars are another story. Those things
>>often have ERP's of several hundred megawatts. They are designed to
>>burn through almost any kind of intereference.
>
>
>Erm... I DID say..:-
>"I have a severe
>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average anti-aircraft/G-A
>missile radar......"
>
>Are you suggesting anti-aircraft/G-A missile radars are airborne?
>
>Or do you think they might be "Ground based fire control radars" which
>"are another story"?

Depends whose it is. The Russian and American Fire Control radars are
awesome beasts, however as you move to more locally manufactured
product, they start to look more and more like the capabilities of
airborne radars.

[David Bromage]

Minehunter HMAS Hawkesbury is leaving Sydney for the Solomons tomorrow
morning.

Cheers
David

[RT]

matt weber wrote in message >...
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:37:19 +1000, "RT" > wrote:
>
>>
>>matt weber wrote in message ...
>>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, "RT" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>>>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the
>>point
>>>>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>>>>capable of.
>>>>
>>>>Yair. Well.
>>>>
>>>>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>>>>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>>>>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a
severe
>>>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average
>>anti-aircraft/G-A
>>>>missile radar......
>>>>
>>>30 watts RMS is more than enought to disrupt most airborne radars.
>>>remember the radar duty cycles are very very short, typically less
>>>then .1%, so the ERP from 30 watts rms could easily be in the tens of
>>>kilowatts.
>>>
>>> Ground based fire control radars are another story. Those things
>>>often have ERP's of several hundred megawatts. They are designed to
>>>burn through almost any kind of intereference.
>>
>>
>>Erm... I DID say..:-
>>"I have a severe
>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average
anti-aircraft/G-A
>>missile radar......"
>>
>>Are you suggesting anti-aircraft/G-A missile radars are airborne?
>>
>>Or do you think they might be "Ground based fire control radars" which
>>"are another story"?
>
>Depends whose it is. The Russian and American Fire Control radars are
>awesome beasts, however as you move to more locally manufactured
>product, they start to look more and more like the capabilities of
>airborne radars.

AFCS - what sort of a cop out is that? Are you suggesting the Solomons
have a home groan radar industry?

Sheeeeesh.......... Mattt, you stuffed up - admit it and let's go on with
something else.....

[matt weber]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 22:55:58 +1000, "RT" > wrote:

>
>matt weber wrote in message >...
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:37:19 +1000, "RT" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>matt weber wrote in message ...
>>>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, "RT" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>>>>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the
>>>point
>>>>>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>>>>>capable of.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yair. Well.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>>>>>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>>>>>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a
>severe
>>>>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average
>>>anti-aircraft/G-A
>>>>>missile radar......
>>>>>
>>>>30 watts RMS is more than enought to disrupt most airborne radars.
>>>>remember the radar duty cycles are very very short, typically less
>>>>then .1%, so the ERP from 30 watts rms could easily be in the tens of
>>>>kilowatts.
>>>>
>>>> Ground based fire control radars are another story. Those things
>>>>often have ERP's of several hundred megawatts. They are designed to
>>>>burn through almost any kind of intereference.
>>>
>>>
>>>Erm... I DID say..:-
>>>"I have a severe
>>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average
>anti-aircraft/G-A
>>>missile radar......"
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting anti-aircraft/G-A missile radars are airborne?
>>>
>>>Or do you think they might be "Ground based fire control radars" which
>>>"are another story"?
>>
>>Depends whose it is. The Russian and American Fire Control radars are
>>awesome beasts, however as you move to more locally manufactured
>>product, they start to look more and more like the capabilities of
>>airborne radars.
>
>AFCS - what sort of a cop out is that? Are you suggesting the Solomons
>have a home groan radar industry?
You never know who has been trading what with who. You can often be
surprised at how good indigenous engineering is as well. NEVER
UNDERESTIMATE the resources or persistence of a highly motivated
enemy.

If you asked someone what the odds were that an F117 could be shot
down by a soviet SAM 5 years ago, everyone would have laughed at you,
but a combination of smart indigenous engineering in Kosovo, and a
dumb USAF resulted in just that.

The US did indeed try fitting an airborne radar onto a AA gun, it was
called the Divad. It was a spectacular failure, and was cancelled long
before it ever got into volume production.

The really good Russian and US stuff is hard to get on the black
market, the not quite so sophisticated Indian, Chinese, French, North
Korean stuff is a whole lot easier (and cheaper) to get, and a whole
lot less capable.

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, RT > wrote:
>
>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the point
>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>capable of.
>
>Yair. Well.
>
>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a severe
>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average anti-aircraft/G-A
>missile radar......

Why?

Couldn't the UAV check for radar emissions, and then broadcast a
signal on the same frequency the radar is using? wouldn't that
disrupt the radar?



--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[matt weber]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:11:48 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, RT > wrote:
>>
>>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the point
>>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>>capable of.
>>
>>Yair. Well.
>>
>>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a severe
>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average anti-aircraft/G-A
>>missile radar......
>
>Why?
>
>Couldn't the UAV check for radar emissions, and then broadcast a
>signal on the same frequency the radar is using? wouldn't that
>disrupt the radar?

Depends upon the type of radar. There is very little 'CW' radar in
use anylonger. most is "chirp" frequency modulated, so if you don't
appropriately modulate the signal, it is simply ignored. (Think about
why the AM radio hears the ignition noise on the cars as they go buy,
but an FM radio does not. Ignition noise is amplitude modulated, and
FM detectors do not detect amplitude.

Others are monopulse. they fire a single pulse. The next pulse they
fire will be on another frequency. There are all sorts of modulation
and transmission schemes to extract additional information from the
target, and to make the radar more difficult to jam. EF-111's and
EA6-B use the entire payload for Electronic counter measures.




This is why ECM system are so complex. To defeat the other radar
effectively, you have to figure out exactly what it is (and the USA
and it's allies have a long history is doing things to 'excite' the
air defenses of less than friendly countries so they can characterize
the radar, and build a threat library.

[S. Sampson]

"matt weber" > wrote
>
> This is why ECM system are so complex. To defeat the other radar
> effectively, you have to figure out exactly what it is (and the USA
> and it's allies have a long history is doing things to 'excite' the
> air defenses of less than friendly countries so they can characterize
> the radar, and build a threat library.

The big thing today, is to direction find (DF) the emitter and kill it.
Not a whole lot of jamming anymore except for self-protection.
The U.S. and British DF aircraft are very good at finding emitters,
and then the UAV's can go in and get a visual, and the plan made
for its destruction. The mobile stuff is not that hard to kill.

Even the Patriot was blown-up when it targeted the HARM equipped
aircraft in the recent war. Shoot first, and live.

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:38:38 -0700, matt weber > wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:11:48 +0100, (phil hunt)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, RT > wrote:
>>>
>>>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the point
>>>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>>>capable of.
>>>
>>>Yair. Well.
>>>
>>>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>>>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>>>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a severe
>>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average anti-aircraft/G-A
>>>missile radar......
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>Couldn't the UAV check for radar emissions, and then broadcast a
>>signal on the same frequency the radar is using? wouldn't that
>>disrupt the radar?
>
>Depends upon the type of radar. There is very little 'CW' radar in
>use anylonger. most is "chirp" frequency modulated, so if you don't
>appropriately modulate the signal, it is simply ignored.

That makes sense. How easy would it be for the UAV to listen to thre
incoming signal, and match its response to it?

I would guess the radar uses a different "chirp" for each pulse it
sends out; is that correct?

> (Think about
>why the AM radio hears the ignition noise on the cars as they go buy,

I can't say I've ever noticed that effect, but I'll take your word
for it.

>but an FM radio does not. Ignition noise is amplitude modulated, and
>FM detectors do not detect amplitude.
>
> Others are monopulse. they fire a single pulse. The next pulse they
>fire will be on another frequency. There are all sorts of modulation
>and transmission schemes to extract additional information from the
>target, and to make the radar more difficult to jam. EF-111's and
>EA6-B use the entire payload for Electronic counter measures.

It seems to me the best way to counter a radar is to fire a missile
that homes in on the radar's signals -- since a radar, to work, must
emit signals.

(Of course, an adversary could build lots of cheap boxes that give
off signals that appear the same as a real radar, to soak up lots of
anti-radiation missiles).

> This is why ECM system are so complex. To defeat the other radar
>effectively, you have to figure out exactly what it is (and the USA
>and it's allies have a long history is doing things to 'excite' the
>air defenses of less than friendly countries so they can characterize
>the radar, and build a threat library.

How good are passive sensors compared to radar? I would imagine that
visual light and infra-red would be quite good ways of detecting
aircraft (and if you have 2 detectors some distance away you can use
triangulation to get the exact position), at least when there are no
clouds.


--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[matt weber]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:54:31 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:38:38 -0700, matt weber > wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:11:48 +0100, (phil hunt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, RT > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The Raven wrote in message ...
>>>>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the point
>>>>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they are
>>>>>capable of.
>>>>
>>>>Yair. Well.
>>>>
>>>>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about its
>>>>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
>>>>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a severe
>>>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average anti-aircraft/G-A
>>>>missile radar......
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>>Couldn't the UAV check for radar emissions, and then broadcast a
>>>signal on the same frequency the radar is using? wouldn't that
>>>disrupt the radar?
>>
>>Depends upon the type of radar. There is very little 'CW' radar in
>>use anylonger. most is "chirp" frequency modulated, so if you don't
>>appropriately modulate the signal, it is simply ignored.
>
>That makes sense. How easy would it be for the UAV to listen to thre
>incoming signal, and match its response to it?
The Self Projection jammer pods often represent more than the
available lift capacity of the UAV unless you are talking about
something the size of a Predator or a Global Hawk...
>
>I would guess the radar uses a different "chirp" for each pulse it
>sends out; is that correct?
It may, but more likely it is a mono pulse, same chirp, but broadcast
on a different frequency each time...
>
>> (Think about
>>why the AM radio hears the ignition noise on the cars as they go buy,
>
>I can't say I've ever noticed that effect, but I'll take your word
>for it.

>
>(Of course, an adversary could build lots of cheap boxes that give
>off signals that appear the same as a real radar, to soak up lots of
>anti-radiation missiles).
While it could be done, it isn't all that cost effective, to build an
emitter that would look enough like a real radar to be attacked would
probably cost 15-20% of the price of the real thing. That's a lot of
money to spend on decoys!
>How good are passive sensors compared to radar? I would imagine that
>visual light and infra-red would be quite good ways of detecting
>aircraft (and if you have 2 detectors some distance away you can use
>triangulation to get the exact position), at least when there are no
>clouds.
Depends upon what you are looking for. At fair amount of effort has
gone into reducing both the RF and Visual 'cross section' of aircraft.
A great deal of effort has also gone into reducing exhaust gas
temperatures. You can actually hold your hand in the exhaust stream of
an AH64 Apache while the engine is at idle.

If you are looking for an F4 or a B52, it won't be very hard, it is
big, noisy and smokey. If you are looking for a 100kg UAV at 5000
feet, or a Proteus at 70,000 feet... good luck... one of the reason
sat links are preferred is they only radiate energy upward, so they
don't provide much to listen for from the ground.

[Thomas Schoene]

"M.R." > wrote in message
u
> Really interesting this evolution of UAV's and other weapons such as
> JDAM munitions.
> How do the JDAM munitions work? Is it and inertia launch then initial
> GPS guidance and an infra-red image for the last stage to home in on.
> If a UAV and JDAM weapon where combined that would have to be a fairly
> stealthy target?

Current JDAMS are pure GPS -- no IR seeker. The weapon isn etirely passive
and certainly could be stealthy. The problem is that even the 500-lb JDAM
is really too big for current UAVs. Smaller bombs are in development, and
we may well see UAVs armed with them in the not-too-distant future.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:34:07 -0700, matt weber > wrote:
>>
>>That makes sense. How easy would it be for the UAV to listen to thre
>>incoming signal, and match its response to it?
>
>The Self Projection jammer pods often represent more than the
>available lift capacity of the UAV unless you are talking about
>something the size of a Predator or a Global Hawk...

Why would it need to be so big? Is it the receiving equipment, the
transmitting equipment, or the electronics in between that takes up
the space?

>>(Of course, an adversary could build lots of cheap boxes that give
>>off signals that appear the same as a real radar, to soak up lots of
>>anti-radiation missiles).
>
>While it could be done, it isn't all that cost effective, to build an
>emitter that would look enough like a real radar to be attacked would
>probably cost 15-20% of the price of the real thing.

How much do real radars cost?

Certainly there are some radio transmitting equipments that are
cheap -- for example mobile phones and wi-fi stations -- and I'd
imagine that scaling up the transmitting powrer on such a device
would be too expensive either.

>>How good are passive sensors compared to radar? I would imagine that
>>visual light and infra-red would be quite good ways of detecting
>>aircraft (and if you have 2 detectors some distance away you can use
>>triangulation to get the exact position), at least when there are no
>>clouds.
>
>Depends upon what you are looking for.
>[...]
>If you are looking for an F4 or a B52, it won't be very hard,

That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind (or an F-16 or
Tornado or F-22, etc, bascially any modern supersonic aircraft)

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[M.R.]

Really interesting this evolution of UAV's and other weapons such as JDAM
munitions.
How do the JDAM munitions work? Is it and inertia launch then initial GPS
guidance and an infra-red image for the last stage to home in on.
If a UAV and JDAM weapon where combined that would have to be a fairly
stealthy target?

Is it fairly easy to have a sensor that warns of overhead SAR from a UAV or
such.
Whats the difference between Synthetic Aperture Radar and just radar?
Is there any such thing as active infra-red or is infra-red solely a passive
means of detection. What's its range?

What's the formula for roughly working out the horizon of a radar?
Height in feet squared is the horizon in miles or something.
This new Surface Wave Radar blows it all out of the water.

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 14:54:31 +0100, (phil hunt)
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:38:38 -0700, matt weber >
wrote:
> >>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:11:48 +0100, (phil hunt)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:44:02 +1000, RT > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>The Raven wrote in message ...
> >>>>>My only concern is that the Aerosonde UAVs will be over hyped to the
point
> >>>>>people will get the wrong impression of what they are and what they
are
> >>>>>capable of.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yair. Well.
> >>>>
> >>>>Not helped by the hype on the Aerosonde web site rabbiting on about
its
> >>>>radar disruptive capabilities - shortly after saying the total power
> >>>>available is 30 watts or similar. It's not my field but I have a
severe
> >>>>problem believing 30 W in a UAV will disable your average
anti-aircraft/G-A
> >>>>missile radar......
> >>>
> >>>Why?
> >>>
> >>>Couldn't the UAV check for radar emissions, and then broadcast a
> >>>signal on the same frequency the radar is using? wouldn't that
> >>>disrupt the radar?
> >>
> >>Depends upon the type of radar. There is very little 'CW' radar in
> >>use anylonger. most is "chirp" frequency modulated, so if you don't
> >>appropriately modulate the signal, it is simply ignored.
> >
> >That makes sense. How easy would it be for the UAV to listen to thre
> >incoming signal, and match its response to it?
> The Self Projection jammer pods often represent more than the
> available lift capacity of the UAV unless you are talking about
> something the size of a Predator or a Global Hawk...
> >
> >I would guess the radar uses a different "chirp" for each pulse it
> >sends out; is that correct?
> It may, but more likely it is a mono pulse, same chirp, but broadcast
> on a different frequency each time...
> >
> >> (Think about
> >>why the AM radio hears the ignition noise on the cars as they go buy,
> >
> >I can't say I've ever noticed that effect, but I'll take your word
> >for it.
>
> >
> >(Of course, an adversary could build lots of cheap boxes that give
> >off signals that appear the same as a real radar, to soak up lots of
> >anti-radiation missiles).
> While it could be done, it isn't all that cost effective, to build an
> emitter that would look enough like a real radar to be attacked would
> probably cost 15-20% of the price of the real thing. That's a lot of
> money to spend on decoys!
> >How good are passive sensors compared to radar? I would imagine that
> >visual light and infra-red would be quite good ways of detecting
> >aircraft (and if you have 2 detectors some distance away you can use
> >triangulation to get the exact position), at least when there are no
> >clouds.
> Depends upon what you are looking for. At fair amount of effort has
> gone into reducing both the RF and Visual 'cross section' of aircraft.
> A great deal of effort has also gone into reducing exhaust gas
> temperatures. You can actually hold your hand in the exhaust stream of
> an AH64 Apache while the engine is at idle.
>
> If you are looking for an F4 or a B52, it won't be very hard, it is
> big, noisy and smokey. If you are looking for a 100kg UAV at 5000
> feet, or a Proteus at 70,000 feet... good luck... one of the reason
> sat links are preferred is they only radiate energy upward, so they
> don't provide much to listen for from the ground.

[Ben Full]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "M.R." > wrote in message
> u
> > Really interesting this evolution of UAV's and other weapons such as
> > JDAM munitions.
> > How do the JDAM munitions work? Is it and inertia launch then initial
> > GPS guidance and an infra-red image for the last stage to home in on.
> > If a UAV and JDAM weapon where combined that would have to be a fairly
> > stealthy target?
>
> Current JDAMS are pure GPS -- no IR seeker.

They are INS/GPS guided and also have an INS only mode as a failsafe against
GPS jamming.

The weapon isn etirely passive
> and certainly could be stealthy. The problem is that even the 500-lb JDAM
> is really too big for current UAVs. Smaller bombs are in development, and
> we may well see UAVs armed with them in the not-too-distant future.

The Small Diameter Bomb was due to be deployed in around 2006 i think. The
250lb weapon would be ideal for fitting to smaller platforms such as UAVs -
the probuction X-47, if there is one, would be able to carry a number of
them - and they have a high penetrating power fora small weapon. Looks
like it could be a good weapons system.

> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>

BMFull
>
>
>
>

[Thomas Schoene]

"Ben Full" > wrote in message

> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Current JDAMS are pure GPS -- no IR seeker.
>
> They are INS/GPS guided and also have an INS only mode as a failsafe
> against GPS jamming.

You're right, of course. I meant only that they have no terminal imaging
seeker.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[matt weber]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 02:31:28 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:34:07 -0700, matt weber > wrote:
>>>
>>>That makes sense. How easy would it be for the UAV to listen to thre
>>>incoming signal, and match its response to it?
>>
>>The Self Projection jammer pods often represent more than the
>>available lift capacity of the UAV unless you are talking about
>>something the size of a Predator or a Global Hawk...
>
>Why would it need to be so big? Is it the receiving equipment, the
>transmitting equipment, or the electronics in between that takes up
>the space?
All of the above, you need a receiver that can receive almost
anything, and enough electronics to be able to analyse the
transmission in real time (which requires very FAST A/D, identify the
characteristics of the emitter so they can be matched against the
threat library, and then you need a transmitter of sufficient power
and ability to generate an appropriate rep rate and modulation scheme
to be able to jam the threat, if it is a threat. All up, if you are
lucky, perhaps only a few hundred Kg...
>
>>>(Of course, an adversary could build lots of cheap boxes that give
>>>off signals that appear the same as a real radar, to soak up lots of
>>>anti-radiation missiles).
>>
>>While it could be done, it isn't all that cost effective, to build an
>>emitter that would look enough like a real radar to be attacked would
>>probably cost 15-20% of the price of the real thing.
>
>How much do real radars cost?
Depend upon how fancy you want to make them. The military is famous
for 'gold plating', and what you have now is a computer that happens
to have a radar attached. Some of them have 8 figure price tags, the
problem is in producing an emitter that will be identified as a
potential threat, it really has to produce an output that looks like a
threat, which means you probably need just about the entire transmit
package.
>
>Certainly there are some radio transmitting equipments that are
>cheap -- for example mobile phones and wi-fi stations -- and I'd
>imagine that scaling up the transmitting powrer on such a device
>would be too expensive either.
Those however are very simple emitter that don't depend upon complex
modulation schemes, fast frequency hopping, or monopulse designs...
The bind is that todays ADF and Fire Control Radars control radars are
depend upon complex modulation schemes to extract a great deal of
information. For example they can tell the difference between a
737-200 and a 737-300, a helicopter and similar weight jet fighter,
and it isn't based upon the strength of the radar reflection, it is
based upon the assortment of doppler shifts they see in the return,
they really can see the fan on the engine, the rotor on the
helicopter, and propeller...
>
>>>How good are passive sensors compared to radar? I would imagine that
>>>visual light and infra-red would be quite good ways of detecting
>>>aircraft (and if you have 2 detectors some distance away you can use
>>>triangulation to get the exact position), at least when there are no
>>>clouds.
>>
>>Depends upon what you are looking for.
>>[...]
>>If you are looking for an F4 or a B52, it won't be very hard,
>
>That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind (or an F-16 or
>Tornado or F-22, etc, bascially any modern supersonic aircraft)
Passive detections at this point is in two parts. At the moment only a
limited amount is done via EO, as a friend who in the business put it,
it is very limited because our heart really isn't in it. Otherwise it
is mostly based upon EMI that is generated on the other end. So if the
other aircraft is electrically quiet, and doesn't have a big visual
image, or create massive air flow disruptions, passive sensing won't
see very much.

Light the burners, or engage in some fancy maneuvers, or turn on the
search radar, and that is another story...

Passive detection is very useful if you have enough information, i.e.
if your threat library says that is a model XX-YY radar, and you know
those are only carried on a single type of airframe...

[me]

Hi,

The list of unit deployed has some security restrictions that would stop it
from being listed here.

Any particular reason you're interested in exactly what units went?

ME


"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> Does anybody know exactly which units are going to the Solomon Islands?
> The Defence media releases haven't contained much detail, other than the
> Australian infantry contingent will be from the 3rd Brigade. The
> Solomons government did ask for the SAS, but I take it they're not doing.
>
> I know HMAS Manoora sailed is leaving today and the airlift of police
> will begin on Thursday.
>
> What units are New Zealand, PNG, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga sending?
>
> Cheers
> David
>

[David Bromage]

me wrote:
> The list of unit deployed has some security restrictions that would
stop it
> from being listed here.

We knew pretty much the full list of units involved in Operation
Falconer. Why would there more security restrictions about the Solomons
than about Iraq?

> Any particular reason you're interested in exactly what units went?

Just curiosity. The question was specifically about units from New
Zealand, PNG, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, because this was not covered by the
Australian media.

Cheers
David

[Duke of URL]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message

> me wrote:

> > The list of unit deployed has some security restrictions that
would
> stop it from being listed here.
>
> We knew pretty much the full list of units involved in Operation
> Falconer. Why would there more security restrictions about the
> Solomons than about Iraq?

David, it's silly to ask something like that in here - all we can do
(or are allowed to do) is speculate. You should go see someone
official and ask them.

[Errol Cavit]

"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message >...
> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
>
> > me wrote:
>
> > > The list of unit deployed has some security restrictions that
> would
> > stop it from being listed here.
> >
> > We knew pretty much the full list of units involved in Operation
> > Falconer. Why would there more security restrictions about the
> > Solomons than about Iraq?
>
> David, it's silly to ask something like that in here - all we can do
> (or are allowed to do) is speculate. You should go see someone
> official and ask them.

Or people with an interest in military affairs can post links to
published details (either in the local media or official sites) that
they have noticed. It's not like there is a 'one stop shop' for info
about all the forces involved (although the Aussie Op Anode page is
good for their stuff).

Cheers
Errol Cavit