asymetric warfare

ess (phil hunt) wrote:
Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've
written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a
picture. It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the
target.

ROTFL. Yes, once you master the extraordinarily difficult task of
writing software to identify a target, then pretty much else is
simple. But you appear to be underestimating the effort needed to
write that software. (Clue: All of your high tech nations have been
wrestling with the problem for years, with little real sucess.)

Weapons like this were in existance 20 years ago, for example the
Exocet anti-ship missile. I'm not bsure what problems you envisage
with doing this; perhaps you could elaborate?

The Excocet relies on active detection of the target, not on analysis
of passive images of the target.

What you could do is have the missile, if it doesn't find a target
to hang around in the area looking for one. (The British ALARM
missile does this literally :-)).

ALARM, like *ALL* ARM's, depends on *active emissions* by the target,
not on analysis of passive images of the target.

You can't prevent fratricide all the time, and most countries would
have a higher tolerance from losses caused by friendly fire than
most western countries do. The missile would know (at least
approximately - within a few km) were it is, and therefore whether
it is over land occupied by its own side.

Assuming the firing unit has a valid picture of what land is and is
not currently in friendly hands. A problem that 'high tech' nations
are finding difficult to solve.

Otherwise, there are other methods of nagivation: dead reckoning,
celestial, a LORAN-like system could be set up.

One suspects you vastly underestimate the difficulties involved in
accurate navigation.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've
written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a
picture. It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the
target.

Have you looked up "Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance" by Zarchan
(ISBN 1-56347-254-6) like I recommended?

The missile would know (at least
approximately - within a few km) were it is, and therefore whether
it is over land occupied by its own side.

How will the information-gathering to determine the alliegance of
each square click be organized? How quickly can this organization get
information and collate it? How will that information be sent to the
launch sites? How will the launch sites input it into the missile?
*How accurate and timely will it be?*

Note that at the end of Desert Storm, Swartzkopf designated a spot for
ceasefire talks with the Iraqis that he thought was held by the US. But
it wasn't. The units that he thought were there were several kilometers
away.

(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous combat
systems.

Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've
written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a
picture.

Falling off a cliff isn't a problem once you've learned how to fly like
Superman.

Trouble is, that prerequisite is harder than you might expect.

Getting a machine to tell a T-72 from a M1A1 from a Leclerc is hard
enough in good conditions: doing so in the presence of camouflage,
obscurants and when the crew have run out of internal stowage (so have
hung lots of external gear) and maybe stored some spare track plates on
the glacis front ('cause they need the spare plates and they might as
well be extra armour) gets _really_ tricky. Do you err on the side of
"tank-like vehicle, kill!" or "if you're not sure don't attack"?

Would it not be embarrasing to have a successful armoured raid broken up
by your own missiles?

It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the
target.

Which presupposes you know where the target is, even roughly, in a
sufficiently timely manner.

Weapons like this were in existance 20 years ago, for example the
Exocet anti-ship missile.

Which never once hit its intended target from an air launch (five
launches, all aimed at 'carriers'; two hits, one on a picket ship and
one on a STUFT that was seduced off another picket)

Bad example. (Besides, Exocet in 1982 was a frontline Western
capability, launched from aircraft with radar that could cover the
missile's range window... and they _still_ missed their intended
targets. You're talking about Hail Mary shots of extended-ranged Exocets
from the Argentine mainland... really not likely to work)

I'm not bsure what problems you envisage
with doing this; perhaps you could elaborate?

Key problem is that going up against the US loses you your comms and
observation (in oldspeak) or your C4ISTAR (in newspeak). Can't get recce
flights out to see where they are, can't get communication with your
forward observers, can't orbit surveillance assets. Observe how
thoroughly Iraq was deceived in 1991, for instance, or how Argentina
spent most of the Falklands conflict trying to figure out where the
British forces were and what they were doing. (Even when they had a
perfect target, they hit escorts rather than HVUs)

because you can't just fire them "in that direction, more or less", and hit
anything--you have to have a pretty narrow determination of where the target
is right at the time the weapon arrives.

What you could do is have the missile, if it doesn't find a target
to hang around in the area looking for one. (The British ALARM
missile does this literally :-)).

Which area are you firing it at? Seeker windows are small and
battlefields are large. The larger the area it's expected to scan, the
harder it is to build and the less reliable it will be.

(b) Are you going to send it in low, where it
MIGHT have a chance at surviving, but its field of view is extremely
limited, so it is that much more likely to not find any target to hit, but
which also requires oodles of (very accurate, and likely unavailable to most
potential foes) digital topographic data to be uploaded and a complex
navigation system)

The topographic data would probably be available if the missile is
flying over the territory of its own country.

Otherwise, there are other methods of nagivation: dead reckoning,
celestial, a LORAN-like system could be set up.

DR is patchy at best unless you've got good inertial guidance systems
(non-trivial). Celestial only works on clear nights - so you're limited
to fighting wars after dark on cloudless nights with no flares in the
sky. LORAN is a radio broadcast and therefore not survivable against a
US-style opponent.

or up high where the view is better,

It's possible that a mission might require some of the flight to be
at high level and some at low level. I imagine the missiles could
be programmed for a mission by sticking a computer with an Ethernet
cable into a slot on the missile.

This has only been done for twenty years or so in the West, so hardly a
great advance.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"phil hunt" wrote

I imagine the missiles could
be programmed for a mission by sticking a computer with an Ethernet
cable into a slot on the missile.

Here ya go. Code to this explanation, and you're all set.

http://www.techblvd.com/Rvideo/Guidance.wav

Easy.

Pete

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

:On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:
:
: I think there are two issues here. The first is when the sensor is
: attached to the weapon, as it is in a sensor in a missile. Here,
: there is no sensor/shooter cycle, unless you choose to have a human
: involved in the decision to fire.
:
:That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous combat
:systems.
:
:Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've
:written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a
icture. It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the
:target.

This is rather like saying that nuclear weapons aren't hard, once
you've invented a nuclear weapon. If you really find this easy, do I
have a career for you!

:Weapons like this were in existance 20 years ago, for example the
:Exocet anti-ship missile.

Exocet does nothing at all like what you describe above. It flies
inertial with an active radar homing head. Yes, we've had that sort
of thing for quite some time. It works very well when it comes to
finding big radar reflectors like ships among all that flat water.
ATR systems (which is something different than what radar guided
weapons do) is a much tougher problem.

:I'm not bsure what problems you envisage
:with doing this; perhaps you could elaborate?

I could, but then I'd have to kill you....

:because you can't just fire them "in that direction, more or less", and hit
:anything--you have to have a pretty narrow determination of where the target
:is right at the time the weapon arrives.
:
:What you could do is have the missile, if it doesn't find a target
:to hang around in the area looking for one. (The British ALARM
:missile does this literally :-)).

ALARM is an ARM. Again, this is a much easier problem than ATR.

:Now if you want to send a flock of
:CM's out and about to go on a hunter-killer mission, you have some real
:problems to confront, like: (a) How do you prevent fratricide or targeting
:of the local version of the Sanford garbage truck (remember that not every
:enemy is going to be able to discount collateral damage like the insurgents
:we are no facing in Iraq do)?
:
:You can't prevent fratricide all the time, and most countries would
:have a higher tolerance from losses caused by friendly fire than
:most western countries do. The missile would know (at least
:approximately - within a few km) were it is, and therefore whether
:it is over land occupied by its own side.
:
iscriminating between military and civilian vehicles is a lot
:harder, I agree.

Discriminating vehicles from ground clutter is a lot harder, period.

:(b) Are you going to send it in low, where it
:MIGHT have a chance at surviving, but its field of view is extremely
:limited, so it is that much more likely to not find any target to hit, but
:which also requires oodles of (very accurate, and likely unavailable to most
:potential foes) digital topographic data to be uploaded and a complex
:navigation system)
:
:The topographic data would probably be available if the missile is
:flying over the territory of its own country.

You might want to look at the accuracy of DTED and how much data you
would have to load to your missile.

:Otherwise, there are other methods of nagivation: dead reckoning,

Requires good IMUs. Even then, your accuracy is going to degrade
rapidly over time as you fly about.

:celestial,

Harder to do for a missile, wouldn't you say? The only weapons I'm
aware of that even attempt this are ICBM warhead busses.

:a LORAN-like system could be set up.

And immediately put off the air by a strike from your opponent. It's
also not particularly accurate when compared to what you need for a
PGM.

:or up high where the view is better,
:
:It's possible that a mission might require some of the flight to be
:at high level and some at low level. I imagine the missiles could
:be programmed for a mission by sticking a computer with an Ethernet
:cable into a slot on the missile.

You imagine a lot of things. That's about as far as most of them
could go in the real world.

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

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).

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

: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.

And what percentage of your Elbonian national economy is that $10k?
How much infrastructure to produce it?

:Furthermore none of these missile systems
:are perfectly accurate, thus if many missiles are sent, some
:would get through.

Assuming any are accurate enough to actually make the target.

: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.

Hogwash. Now you're to multiple models of stealthy weapons. Not
something Elbonia is going to produce.

: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.

Now look through the viewfinder and move the camera rapidly from side
to side. Not suitable for this application.

: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 how many of them are specialists in ATR and imagery?

: 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.

Yes, they do. That's your problem. You have no conception of how
hard the problem you're handwaving away is.

: 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.

Now look for something that can encrypt a video stream in a secure and
jam-proof fashion and decrypt it on the other end fast enough to
essentially have zero control lag. Solving this, however, is much
more likely than solving the ATR and sensor problems you wave away
above.

: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.

I'll tell this to the folks on the SLAM-ER team next time I'm in St
Louis. I'm sure they'll find your contentions about how easy this is
to do about as funny as I do.

: 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"

You might want to look at what some of them are.

:There are probably also a number of secret programs, or programs to
:add better sensors/computers to existing UAVs/missiles.

No doubt. But they're not producing things that your average tribe
member is going to churn out in a mud hut, either.

: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.

I predict you're probably wrong.

You know, if it was as easy as you seem to think, my life would
certainly be a lot easier.

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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:
c) Development of
a reliable, compact, onboard sensor suite that provides enough resolution to
find likely targets, and a darned intelligent software package to handle
target discrimination (from background clutter, earlier posited garbage
truck, etc.), 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.

There's also the problem of ensuring that your swarm of missiles sent
against a swarm of targets don't all choose the same, or a small set
of targets. Non trivial at best, nightmarish at worst, and one that
the 'high tech' nations have all looked at, and declined to solve,
choosing instead other solutions.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:15:51 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

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.

I do not know about anti-ship missiles, or anti-aircraft missiles, but an
anti-vehicle (except tank) missile that combines a portable TV, a
pen sized camera, two diode laser TXRX sets, an RC aircraft on steroids, and
a six mile spool of optical fibre should be possible. While hardly a threat
to tanks, if they were all available in Iraq, coalition casualties might have
unpalatable numbers. The users lofts it over the hard cover that he is hiding
behind and uses its camera to find a target and then dives the missile into
it. Probably only a few thousand dollars worth of parts.

(Richard Bell) wrote:

:I do not know about anti-ship missiles, or anti-aircraft missiles, but an
:anti-vehicle (except tank) missile that combines a portable TV, a
en sized camera, two diode laser TXRX sets, an RC aircraft on steroids, and
:a six mile spool of optical fibre should be possible. While hardly a threat
:to tanks, if they were all available in Iraq, coalition casualties might have
:unpalatable numbers. The users lofts it over the hard cover that he is hiding
:behind and uses its camera to find a target and then dives the missile into
:it. Probably only a few thousand dollars worth of parts.

And you don't think after the first time that folks would start to
notice them and follow the cable back?

--
"Nekubi o kaite was ikenai"
["It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."]
-- Admiral Yamamoto