asymetric warfare

"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?

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.

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

This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military
services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter cycle,
and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive targets.
In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar
capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if not
longer) is remote.


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).

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

Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

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.

Brooks

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:15:51 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

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

This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military
services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter cycle,
and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive targets.
In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar
capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if not
longer) is remote.

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.

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?

Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

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.

--
"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).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:15:51 GMT, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

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

This is really not as simple as you make it out to be. The US military
services are still wrestling with ways to compress the sensor/shooter
cycle,
and with fielding weapons capable of handling mobile/time-sensitive
targets.
In view of that, the likelihood of any likely foe developing a similar
capability in the near terms (and that really is the next ten years, if
not
longer) is remote.

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. The closest thing we have to that in service are the intelligent
antiarmor submunitions, which are already in service in cluter munitions to
include WCMD dispensers, and will soon be available as a warhead option for
the Army's ATACMS missiles. But they still require a sensor in the loop,
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. 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)? (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) 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? and, (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.


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. 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.


Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

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. 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). 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.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .
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. The closest thing we have to that in service are the intelligent
antiarmor submunitions, which are already in service in cluter munitions
to
include WCMD dispensers, and will soon be available as a warhead option
for
the Army's ATACMS missiles. But they still require a sensor in the loop,
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.

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).

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)?

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.

(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) 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? and,

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.

(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.

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%.

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.
[snip]

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).

"Dionysios Pilarinos" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .
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. The closest thing we have to that in service are the
intelligent
antiarmor submunitions, which are already in service in cluter munitions
to
include WCMD dispensers, and will soon be available as a warhead option
for
the Army's ATACMS missiles. But they still require a sensor in the loop,
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.

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.


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)?

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).


(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) 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? and,

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. 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. 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. Finally, we have
a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers
and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS. 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.


(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.

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.


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.
[snip]

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.

Brooks

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:22:34 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

I think that Phil is probably talking about weapons like the IAI Harpy. It
is a relatively inexpensive "CM" used in SEAD operations. The only
significant technology employed by this vehicle is in the sensor (and even
there, a "middle-ranking country" should not have a problem developing or
procuring).

The question really is if it is possible to integrate different sensors
(TV,
IR) on such vehicles, if you can accurately identify targets (based on
some
signature characteristics or library), and how effective it could be (at
not
killing your own or being easily defeated by the enemy).

And those questions are the kind that even the US, with its multi-billion
dollar R&D structure, is tangling with--do you really see some second/third
world potential foe solving that dilemma over the posited period of the next
ten years? I don't.

The problems listed above are information-processing problems, that
is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to
solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really
competent programms can be many times more productive than how
software is traditionally written. I've worked as a programmer for
defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe
me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was
written right, it could probably be done with several orders of
magnitude more efficiency.

Those home on active emitters, keeping their last transmitting location in
their memory in case they drop off the air. That is a big difference from
going after targets that are purely passive and are not radiating (or not
radiating anything you can actually read with a system that could be placed
in such a small weapon--detecting the frequency agile signals from vehicle
FM radios is not going to work).

Most ground vehicles radiate visible lightr, at least during
daytime. At light they radiate IR, which can bre picked up with
similar sensors.

I disagree. On the one hand you are going to have to use a pretty complex CM
of sorts, as we have already seen from the discussion to this point, if you
are going to engage previously unlocated targets, so the idea that these
things will be cheaply turned out in some converted auto garage is not going
to cut it.

Wrong. The complexity is in the *software*. CM hardware can be --
and historically has been -- put together by unskilled slave labour
in squalid conditions.

They will also be expensive--the R&D effort is still required,

Yes. But once software has been written once (and we're talking
millions not billions of dollars) it can be duplicated at zero cost.

since what has been postulated is essentially an autonomous attack system
that does not currently exist even in the US. Third, the number of Patiots
that can be made available is not a trivial number--count the number of
missiles available in the uploaded canisters of a single battery, not to
mention the reminder of its ABL that is accompanying them.

Do you have actual numbers here?

Finally, we have
a rather substantial stock of Stingers, including ones mounted on Avengers
and BFV-Stinger, along with the regular MANPADS.

It would be quite easy for an attack by lots of cruise missiles to
overload the defences at a point.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:22:34 GMT, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

snip

since what has been postulated is essentially an autonomous attack system
that does not currently exist even in the US. Third, the number of
Patiots
that can be made available is not a trivial number--count the number of
missiles available in the uploaded canisters of a single battery, not to
mention the reminder of its ABL that is accompanying them.

Do you have actual numbers here?

Six firing batteries per Patriot battalion, with eight launchers per
battery, equals 48 launchers per battalion. Each launcher has 4 rounds
onboard, so you are talking 192 missiles loaded out and ready to fire--not
sure what the ABL is, but safely assume at least two rounds per tube in the
battery/BN trains structure, so we are looking at what, another 384 rounds
readily available? So total Pats equals about 576 rounds for a single
battalion? Then you have the Avengers, with 36 Avengers in each corps level
ADA Avenger battalion, each with 8 tubes uploaded, so just taking into
account their initial upload you are talking 288 missiles without bothering
to consider their ABL in the trains. But that's not all, folks--each
division has its own ADA battalion, with another 24 Avengers, 24 BSF-V's,
and 40 MANPADS (or a heavy division), so again minus the ammo in the trains,
you have another 328 Stingers there. So your nominal corps force is going to
have somewhere in the neighborhood of beween 576 and 1,100 Patriots covering
it, another thousand plus Stingers (conservative estimate). Are you
beginning to understand why trying to out-tech the US is an unwise move if
you are really interested in asymetric warfare?

Brooks

ess (phil hunt) wrote:
The problems listed above are information-processing problems, that
is, software problems. Does it really require billions of dollars to
solve these problems? I say no: a few small groups of really
competent programms can be many times more productive than how
software is traditionally written.

The issue isn't programmers Phil. The issue the massive amounts of
R&D to develop the information needed to specify the sensor that the
programmers will process the output of. The issue is the massive
amount of R&D needed to develop the algorithms the programmers will
implement to analyze the output of the sensor. The issue is the
thousands of hours of R&D needed to develop the database that the
software will use to compare the output of the sensor with...

Writing the software is but one small piece (howsoever important) of a
much larger and more complex effort.

I've worked as a programmer for defense contractors (and for other large
organisations), and believe me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency.
if the software was written right, it could probably be done with several orders
of magnitude more efficiency.

You could have the tightest, fastest, most efficient analysis code in
the world... But it's all meaningless without the other things that go
into making a targeting system. What you have is the typical myopia
of the programmer.

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:
I've worked as a programmer for
defense contractors (and for other large organisations), and believe
me, there is a *lot* of waste and inefficiency. If the software was
written right, it could probably be done with several orders of
magnitude more efficiency.

What competing method is there except for Open Source?

-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."

"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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

Brooks