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.

(Derek Lyons) writes:

(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.

Actually, it isn't. Even given a simple, absolute, "the target is
3.7 degrees left of and 1.1 degrees below sensor boresight axis",
determining the flight control outputs that will steer the missile
towards the target is a Very Hard Problem. Actually implementing
those flight control problems in hardware is another. Simplistic
"steer the missile towards the target" solutions, tend to result
in divergent oscillations that end up with the missile tumbling
out of the control. Simplistic solutions to that one, tend to
result in the missile always being behind the curve and losing
sight of the target in the terminal approach.

Getting it right, requires a lot of specialized knowledge, a lot
of analysis and design work, and a lot of testing.


But you appear to be underestimating the effort needed to
write that software.

Standard hacker arrogance. All hardware problems can be solved
in software, and all software problems can be solved by two guys
with a case of Jolt cola and a long weekend.

For problems where this is actually true, there's nothing better
than unleashing a top hacker. Designing cruise missiles, as it
turns out, is not such a problem. It can probably be done an
order of magnitude faster, better, and cheaper than the major
military powers do it, but that requires a first-rate technical
and managerial team working under ideal conditions, and it's
still an order of magnitude harder and more expensive than he
imagines.

Doing it when the Generalissimo demands that his ne'r-do-well
son-in-law have an important part in the project team, the
Ministry of Security has a suspicious eye on some of the top
people you actually *want*, and you need to work through three
middlemen and a smuggler just to get a good oscilliscope, is
probably right out.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

I've been given some consideration to this topic, and beyond some of
the proposals, I do have a question about one possible tactic.
First of all, buying some Mig-29's, Rafaels, or F-16's just gives
the USN and USAF more targets. You cannot buy enough to make any
difference, they will be quantitatively outnumbered and qualitatively
outgunned (few nations will have such refinements as AWAC's) and will
be shot down, leaving the USAF free to do as it pleases. Ditto for
the bases, which will be killed fairly quickly.

Now, in the 1980's, the birtish had the idea of the Small Agile
Battle Field Aircraft (SABA), which in some incarnations was a fanjet
(pusher style) aircraft with 6 hardpoints for sidewinders, and a 25mm
internal gun for use against tanks and helicopters. THe idea with the
thing was that it was small, fairly cheap, agile, and very STOL (so
you could use open fields). Instead of trying for air superiroity by
an uber plane it tried for survivability by being able to have lots of
them, and very dispersed basing.

Now, if I was a second or third teir nation thinking of engaging
the U.S., I'd want this.
i'm not going to gain air superiority, but if I can keep the air
force looking to squash allthe cheap cockroach planes I have out
there, they might not be able to fully concentrate on CAS either.
also, since my planes operate close to the ground, i may be able to
lure some jets down to where AAA can get at them, and heck, I might
even be able to get some CAS of my own in.

Now, would this be viable? Note, I'm not saying "coudl I win",
because in an all out, there will be only one likely outcome, but
"could it make more trouble for the U.S. than a tarmac load of
Mig-29's or other expensive jets."

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."

On 19 Dec 2003 15:56:55 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote:
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?

I haven't -- I tend not to read off-net sources, due to time, space
and money constraints.

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?

I'm sure the information won't be entirely accurate.

How will that information be sent to the
launch sites?

As part of a general military communications network.

How will the launch sites input it into the missile?

As part of the general military comms network; the network would use
Internet technology wherever possible, and the software to input it
into the missile would probsably be identical to the software
dealing with it in other nodes. (Since they'd all be internet
devices).

--
"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).

In article ,
phil hunt wrote:
On 19 Dec 2003 15:56:55 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote:
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?

I haven't -- I tend not to read off-net sources, due to time, space
and money constraints.

Lots of university libraries should have it. There are at least five
copies of it at various libraries in Sweden, so there should be 50+ in
the uk.

I would still really, really recommend it. It illustrates the hidden
complexity of guidance. The naive algorithm of "I know which way the target
is, so I'll turn towards it" can't be expected to work all that well.
Even if the missile avoids crashing because the guidance got it into
an uncontrollable oscillation.

-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."

ess (phil hunt) writes:

On 19 Dec 2003 15:56:55 GMT, Bertil Jonell wrote:
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?

I haven't -- I tend not to read off-net sources, due to time, space
and money constraints.

Then you know just enough about any subject to be dangerous. We're
still at least a decade away from the net being more than a suppliment
to the printed word - what gets put online now is the stuff that is
exciting and/or bragworthy, not the rigorous in-depth studies needed
to actually understand a new subject.

If you want to talk intelligently about what it takes to make a guided
missile, you need to know stuff that is printed in Zarchan and a very
few other (unfortunately expensive) textbooks and is to the best of my
knowledge not online anywhere. A good library may substitute for the
out-of-pocket cost of the book; there is no substitute for the time
and effort of reading the book.

And that's true of just about any other subject you might want to
discuss here.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

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

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:25:54 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
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

You don't have to. You have to be able to tell whether it's a
vehicle or not, and if it is, is it in an area likely to be occupied
by own forces.

: 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"?

I'd tend to err towards the former. note that it's a lot easy to
spot a moving vehicle than a stationary one.

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

Indeed. Maybe some form of IFF?

Key problem is that going up against the US loses you your comms and
observation

I doubt that that is true, assuming a competent comms network.

DR is patchy at best unless you've got good inertial guidance systems
(non-trivial). Celestial only works on clear nights

Or during daytime.

- 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.

If you have lots of transmitters, many of which are dummy
transmitters, and many of which are only turned on for a short time,
using frequency hopping, it's rather harder to destroy the network.

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.

I never said it was; it is merely the obvious way to do it.

--
"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:

- 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.

If you have lots of transmitters, many of which are dummy
transmitters, and many of which are only turned on for a short time,
using frequency hopping, it's rather harder to destroy the network.

No, it's *easy* to destroy the network. Just knock down every antenna
in the nation over 100' tall. *poof* No more LORAN network.

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.