asymetric warfare

(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."

Charles Gray wrote:

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,

Among other things, this is *exactly* why long range look-down
shoot-down capability has been chased by the big boys for decades now,
and is actually more-or-less working.

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.

While a popular idea, it's not without it's drawbacks. You need a
sophisticated (and very vulnerable) logistics system to get bullets,
bombs and fuel forward to the aircraft. You need a sophisticated C3I
system to get target data forward to the aircraft. While sitting on
the ground, especially near the FEBA, the aircraft is extraordinarily
vulnerable.

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.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:31:06 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

Charles Gray wrote:

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,

Among other things, this is *exactly* why long range look-down
shoot-down capability has been chased by the big boys for decades now,
and is actually more-or-less working.

True-- while the Rutan's version of the SABA had some stealth
characteristics, I don't think the average small nation can make all
composite aircraft.
Still, 50 propjobs well dispsersed will last longer than 10
Mig-29's needing a mile long runway. (of course, "Longer" in this case
might simple equal a day as oposed to a few hours.)


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.

While a popular idea, it's not without it's drawbacks. You need a
sophisticated (and very vulnerable) logistics system to get bullets,
bombs and fuel forward to the aircraft. You need a sophisticated C3I
system to get target data forward to the aircraft.
You could establish a lot of single use caches, say a single disguised
truck by a field with enough fuel and ammo for a single reload. That
woudl, however, take a LOT of planning.
The biggest problem, as you pointed out, as that in 10 years the US
will probably be having UAV traffic jams, and the day of concealing
something with silly little camaflauge net is well in the past.


While sitting on
the ground, especially near the FEBA, the aircraft is extraordinarily
vulnerable.

D.
Oh true-- if I had my druthers I'd also back this up with some
effective SAMs.
the problem is that unless there is a really paradigm shifting
devleopment, any second teir nation that fights the U.S. is going to
lose-- the best you could do would be make it a loss that also cost
the U.S. something.
Unfortunately, al these ideas require a professional, trained
military service, and 3rd world dictatorships tend to avoid those for
obvious reasons.