If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
... [ SNIP ] I learned it the simple way: If you can see it, you can kill it. Well, not if "it" is capering about merrily in a No Fire Area. AHS |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Keith W wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Keith W wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Hint: Look up the accuracy specifications of GPS. In 7-10 years it will be Galileo. The specifications are a little bit eklastic as they depend on integration time. If you are talking about RELATIVE separation this will in fact be only a few centimers, the accuracy of DGPS. The accuracy of the GPS systems isnt the issue anyway. Its handling the problem of separattion of large numbers of drones. If they have to communicate with each other that introduces extra weight, a considerable processing issue and a vulnerability to jamming and/or spoofing. Frankly you'd probably be better off accepting a certain percentage of losses due to mid air collisions Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- The issue of transmission is the ability of a controller to take action. You dont get it. To maintain separation each drone needs to know where its neighbours are not just its own position Also you need some degree of defense in depth. If an enemy swarm approached you, you would need the ability to direct resources to that are. One UAV with a LMG is not going to stop a swarm. If however it had communication technoilogy it might. The USN isnt going to rely on one LMG for defence Acceptance of losses due to mid air collisions - OK there will be heavy losses from a variety of causes. This is, of course, acceptable in a cheap unmanned system. To me the amazing thing is the sophistication of COTS. You talk about weight and cost, but I can put a mobile in my shirt pocket which can do the most amazing things. Spoofing - all converstaions are routinely encrypted. Jamming - yes OK but if you are the US you simply put the jammers out of action. The US is doing the jamming in this scenarion and dont kid yourself that encryption cant be broken. In point of fact use of an error correcting code, such as Reed Soloman, will go a long way to soving the problem of jamming. You transmit in bursts, the jammers have be on all the time. And this is a problem because ? If you were to have a swarm of UAVs with slightly modified mobile phones with some aircraft being base stations and commumicating via satellite you would have gone a fair way to building your system without too much reaearch. Psst mobile phones require repeaters in line of sight, there arent too many in the middle of the Gulf Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- I think you misunderstand the concept. It is one LMG per plane not one LMG. The whole concept rests on low cost, density and because of density there will be line of sight communication, although not necessariyy direct. Communication is of course needed to allow concentration of forces. You can in fact visualize this as an army of robots. Encryption - can it be broken? There have been a number of mathematical articles on this. If it is breakable you can simply use more bits. A faster code is noltiplication in a modulus and exlusive OR, but you need to transmit "die Radstellung" by another method (say RSA). |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote in message ... "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . wrote in ups.com: According to: http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html An Iranian UAV was able to circle a U.S. aircraft carrier undetected for 25 minutes. With U.S. forces making increasing use of UAV's, the inevitable question becomes: How can we protect our forces against UAV's when other countries or terrorist organizations start using them against us? Was the Iranian "UAV" a small drone like ours,or was it a FULL-SIZE aircraft that was remote controlled? most likely it was a genie out of some Persian story, and dreamed up by some Russian journalist. Assumptions like that get people killed. Underestimating an enemy, or potential enemy, is a very dangerous thing to do. -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Paul J. Adam wrote: Stealth aircraft aren't generally trying to play Kamikaze into warships at sea. True, but I have been thinking more in terms of getting no closer than is required to identify the target and illuminate it with a laser. For a ship near to the shore, you could that with a very small UAV, I think: not easy to knock down, even if you're able to detect it. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Moritz Wünsch wrote: schrieb: The responses so far all point to several things: snip 3. It is always likely to prove difficult to spot a small, stealthy UAV by any means - visual, IR or radar. Furthermore, existing gun/missile systems are not designed to engage such targets and may have great difficulty in doing so. What about using lidar? In bad weather the drone/UAV might be degraded as well as your lidar-system. And for defence/shooting them down maybe something like THEL could be used, and I believe the range of THEL being superior to that of most gun systems. That sounds like a promising approach - but I believe it would be quite a few years before such a system could be in service. Which is, of course, the crux of the problem: the threat is relatively low-tech, cheap, proven and available now, the responses to it are high-tech, costly, unproven and available "sometime in the future". Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote: Block 1B CIWS has an infrared and optical tracker that would do nicely against any UAV within it's range...the question is finding the UAV in the first place. An Infrared search system with the ability to designate to a B1B Phalanx would work quite well I think... But a prop-driven UAV with a small engine and some attention to exhaust masking would not be an easy IR target. If all you want to do is locate and identify a ship, and beam an illuminating laser at it to guide the incoming ordnance, then the UAV can be very small and very hard to detect. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Have you ever seen the radar return from a prop ? Looks like a bloody 747...a prop-job wouldn't be a particular problem and contrary to popular misconception, most modern IR trackers don't rely on a hugh heat gradient but rather on the difference in emissivity between the target and the background, IOW it's tracking the delta, not the absolute IR output of the target... ....Ken |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote: : wrote: : : : Hint #3: A fighter with a 20mm Vulcan will flat mess up a "small, : : slow UAV" and actually has a radar on board so that he can see it and : : some actual training on how to do an air intercept, neither of which a : : helicopter has. : : : :Always assuming that the radar is capable of getting a lock on the UAV. : : No such assumption is necessary. It's not like in the movies. : :What makes you so certain that gunnery radar WILL lock on to a stealthy :UAV? What makes you think that fighter aircraft use gunnery radar? :The UAVs are designed, after all, to avoid being picked up by :radar. For defence planning purposes the assumption has to be that :radar will not probably work against them, unless and until it is roved to be capable of doing so. To take any other attitude would be :foolish complacency. Which means nothing, since a fighter attacking with a gun uses EYEBALLS to get the target and they're way up close. : :If not, his chance of scoring a hit is remote - the speed differential : :is so huge that he could do no more than 'spray and pray'. : : Hint #1: What do you think the landing speed of a jet fighter is? : : Hint #2: Guns work off the pilot's eyeballs. : :And exactly how will the pilot aim his guns, if the radar gunsight :won't lock on and the sights he's got are no better than WW2 standards? He'll aim them the same way he aims them against anything else. Times have changed since WW2 and no 'radar gunsight' is required. :Hint #1: in WW2 the Luftwaffe found that only between 2% and 5% of the :shots they fired hit the target - and they were shooting at B-17s! Now :scale down the target size to a UAV with a wingspan of a couple of :metres, and work out how much ammo would have to be fired to nail one. About 5 rounds. :Hint #2: unlike the Luftwaffe's ammo, the current standard US 20mm :aircraft SAPHEI shell, the PGU-28/B, does not have a tracer - so the ilot will have no idea where his shots are going. Nor does he need to. It's NICE to have radar, but it's hardly necessary in order to score a lot of hits with a modern gun and HUD. : :The basic problem is that naval self-defence systems are designed to : :deal with large, fast objects which produce a nice big radar echo. We : :know that they have problems picking up stealth planes - that's the : :whole point of stealth planes, after all - so it is obvious that : :they're going to have a hell of a lot more problems dealing with a very : :much smaller and inherently stealthy object. I don't doubt they will : :eventually find a means of coping with them, but that's probably years : :away - and the threat exists now. : : Hint #4: The sky is NOT falling, Chicken Little.... : :I sincerely hope that you have absolutely no connection with the lanning of USN defence systems, because that sort of sneering :complacency gets the wrong people killed. I sincerely hope that you have absolute no connection with the planning of ANY systems used by the military, because such abysmal ignorance leads to unexecutable programs designed to counter non-existent threats. : :Note that according to the website above concerning the half-hour : :terrorist flight over Israel "the Israeli army could also do nothing to : :shut down the plane though they observed the entire flight over their : :territory." : : And just why was that? It's a preposterous claim. If you can see it : you can kill it. : :How, exactly? Ordinary MGs with eyeball sights stand hardly any chance f connecting with a small plane at an unknown distance and travelling :at an unknown speed, unless it comes very low and close. Radar FCS :would probably not even pick it up. And none of that applies to most modern aircraft, or even most modern air defense weapons in general. :The report I referenced has this to say: "According to a statement of :Hezbollah leader, the flight over Israel to Nahariya lasted 14 minutes. :Israeli side confirms this claim." : :The report also says: "Currently no country has an efficient defense :against small low-flying UAVs, because existing air defense systems are :not designed to counter threats of this type. Air defenses are mainly :aimed at relatively large and fast planes. Thus, it is not surprising :that Israeli air defense turned out to be weak against "Mirsad 1" UAV. :Israeli army could also do nothing to shut down the plane though they bserved the entire flight over their territory." : :Unless you have evidence that the report is a fabrication - in which :case please post it here - what are your grounds for dismissing it, :except of course that you don't want to believe it? Because it's from an untrustworthy source and doesn't seem to fit the facts of our current reality, however much it might accord with yours. : :The situation is analogous to that posed by the first Russian anti-ship : :missile, the Styx. It was around for years and no-one took much notice : :until one sank an Israeli destroyer in 1967 - : : And was totally ineffective only 5 years later, although dozens were : fired, with one even being downed by a 75mm gun. : :That's right: the Styx was a very big and quite slow missile which made :a nice big target. Modern anti-ship missiles are in a completely :different league. Please note that the Israelis now fit Phalanx to just :about all of their warships. So noted. So what? What does this have to do with the current discussion? : :then the USN woke up to : :the need for a short-range defence system, and Phalanx was the eventual : :answer. : : You have an interesting view of history is all I can say. : :So please explain - why in your opinion was Phalanx developed? I was referring to your apparently belief that everyone was ignoring everything up until 1967. This is merely a stupid belief, totally at odds with the reality most of us live in. :Just to help you, I have a copy of an article by the US technical naval :historian Norman Friedman, which describes the Phalanx as "specifically :designed to destroy incoming missiles which have survived other fleet :defences." Just to help you, we build the ****ing thing. :Your basic attitude seems to be that the USN defences will work erfectly as they do "in the movies", while their attackers will be :easily defeated. I don't feel particularly responsible for how things seem to you. I'd attribute that to your meds, not anything to do with me. :Try asking the crew of USS Stark about that. NO weapon :system, offensive or defensive, can be relied upon to work all of the :time, for a variety of technical and human failure reasons. That's right, but again it's irrelevant to the current discussion. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:In message , Fred J. McCall writes wrote: ::That's because ships haven't had to deal with UAVs before. : :Air targets are air targets. Helicopters are neither trained nor :equipped to do air intercepts. : :Perhaps not in the USN, but there *are* other navies... Really? Who? Of course the French come close, but other than them? :-) The only reason I can come up with to be training helicopters to do air intercept work is a total lack of any ship much larger than a destroyer. That's not a navy.... -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 27th 05 06:23 PM |
CRS: V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 14th 05 08:14 PM |
Air defense (naval and air force) | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Naval air defense | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |