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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Fred J. McCall wrote: The IRANIANS claim the helicopters were scrambled to intercept it. This is part of my reasoning for putting it down to baseless chest thumping. Hint: Helicopters aren't used as interceptors. That's because ships haven't had to deal with UAVs before. As someone else on this board has suggested, a helo with a machine gun may actually be the best way of dealing with small, slow UAVs until something more sophisticated can be developed. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Jeb wrote: It would seem to me to be likely that a simple software code modification would allow an Aegis system to detect smaller, slower returns (I would expect that right now, those get filtered out so that seabirds don't cause spurious readings on the radar scopes). I doubt that very much. If radar systems have great difficulty in detecting and tracking stealthy aircraft like the F-117, B-2 and so on - big objects with lots of metal in them - they are going to find it vastly more difficult to pick up a very small, mostly plastic object which has also been designed to be as stealthy as possible. If that could be remedied by tweaking the software, then all of the money spent on stealth aircraft has been wasted. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Fred J. McCall wrote: Hint #2: Helos are too slow to deal with even a slow UAV. The leading edge of the rotor goes transonic at relatively slow forward speeds. UAVs vary a lot in speed - this article http://www.armscontrol.ru/UAV/mirsad1.htm concerning a UAV flight over Israel, has some data which shows that some of them fly as slow as 75 mph. The Swiss Ranger, which seems typical, is quoted as flying at between 55 and 130 knots. These would certainly be within the capabilities of a helo to catch. 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. 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'. :until :something more sophisticated can be developed. It doesn't take anything "sophisticated" to deal with this threat. If it's really small and really slow, just blow past it in the mach and let the shockwave trash it. That might do the trick, as long as you've got air support handy (not all warhips are aircraft carriers, or have one on call). 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. 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." 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 - then the USN woke up to the need for a short-range defence system, and Phalanx was the eventual answer. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Mark Borgerson" mborgerson.at.comcast.net wrote in message .net... In article V%qfg.6218$JX1.2803@edtnps82, says... Given traffic patterns in the Gulf, it ought to be pretty easy to test whether your software can distinguish between 1000-foot vessels and 100-foot vessels. Mark Borgerson There are LOTS of 1000 ft vessels in the gulf, most are VLCC's 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 =---- |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote in message ups.com... 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 - then the USN woke up to the need for a short-range defence system, and Phalanx was the eventual answer. The Israeli navy was dealing with Styx quite well without Phalanx in 1973. -- 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. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
William Black wrote: wrote in message ups.com... 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 - then the USN woke up to the need for a short-range defence system, and Phalanx was the eventual answer. The Israeli navy was dealing with Styx quite well without Phalanx in 1973. Yes, because they learned the hard way that they had to do something about it (and losing a destroyer is a very hard way...). Phalanx was simply the last-ditch element of a layered defence system which the USN thought it prudent to add as a result of the Israeli experience. The point of my analogy was simply that new threats tend not to be taken very seriously until somebody gets hurt by them - then there is a reaction. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Keith W wrote: wrote in message ps.com... Keith W wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Jack Linthicum wrote: Almost all the arguments one sees here are based on the fact that UAVs are dumb and if you can take the comms out, you are fine. I am not sure that will hold for long, especially if the UAVs are used against ships on open sea, in fair weather, in 'kill every warship you see' mode - which all makes the autonomous decision making of the UAV so much easier. That of course also makes spoofing and the use of decoys much easier and makes the user rather unpopular with any other seafarers. It'd be something of a pity if your UAV's decided to attack the local fishing fleet instead of the USN battle group. Given the number of offshore rigs and support ships as well as tankers in the Persian Gulf such indiscriminate weapons would seem rather unattractive to the Iranians as an example. If you are using video imaging (backed up by some other, e.g. IR/passive EM sensors), I suspect it is a graduate student's exercise in image recognition to distinguish a warship (esp. aircraft carrier) from an oil rig/tanker/finshing ship. Especially if you are flying slow. As a software engineer I'd suggest you are wrong. If such recognition is so easy how did an Argentine aircrew drop bombs on an American tanker in 1982 believing it was a RN Carrier ? A UAV with realtime video image recognition and IR sensors is unlikely to be especially cheap Chaff and flares might foil simple radar/IR seekers, but I can't see how would they defeat video imaging sensor (+good software behind it). Design for minimal communication and bandwidth needs (just for higher level commands/coordination) - much tougher to detect and jam. It is easy to imagine a swarm of UAVs used as very sheap relatively slow (200km/h) flying cruise missiles with small warheads, designed to attack radars and similar on-ship targets that can be seriously damaged with a small warhead (spray a shotgun of darts with wavy aluminium tails into that phased array and see what it can do afterwards). 200 km/hr UAV's are going to be rather vulnerable to all forms of active defence including point defence missiles like RAM and to CIWS. Yes. That's why you want them to be really cheap and use swarming. With real time image recognition systens cheap will be quite a trick. On the other hand RAM is IR homing and the IR signature of a 100hp piston engine is negligible compared to the IR signature of a rocket/jet engine of the current antiship missiles. But not small enough to be invisible Phalanx (or other gun-based CIWS) should be effective, but has rather short range (and not THAT much reloads, if you are dealing with a huge swarm). I suspect it is also looking at targets with much higher radar signature and very different characteristics. Thats just software and rather easier to do than deciding if that 1000 ft long ship is a carrier or VLCC The CIWS mounts look rather distinctly and will obviously be among the targeted areas of the ship. You don't need that much of a warhead to put CIWS radar ot of commission - so perhaps an UAV with 200kg warhead can actually carry 8-12 short range missiles designed for homing on CIWS radar and launch them while being out of range of CIWS. Earth Calling Planet Esteban - a UAV with 200kg warhead and 8-12 sub missiles will be neither small nor cheap. Another possiblity is to actually fly high (say 5-8km) so that the UAV will have to be attacked by missiles and/or aircraft, not CIWS guns, and drop (homing) submunition from there, gravity doing the delivery work. You will want to make these UAVs stealthy, to make the locking of the missile seeker real difficulty (and postpone finding the UAVs as much as possible). There is a tradeoff between sophistication and cost (and reliability, And you are now propsing sophisticated, costly and probably unreliable. simple systems are easier to debug/design correctly). However, a country like China/India or even Iran should be able to mass produce good enough UAVs for peanuts (i.e be able to field thousands of them). The key term being 'good enough', not 'super duper, all weather, high reliability and long service life'. But with real time image recognition, organic SEAD and large warheads DUH ! 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 have misssed one vital point. The Iranians may not aim to sink a US battlegroup, they may simply want to close the straights of Hormuz. For this purpose the motto would be, if it floats and moves sink it. One of the main characteristics of asymmetric warfare is that military forces are rarely attacked. "The services are the safest place to be!". No, suicide bombers go into restaurants and target civilians, not the Israeli military. One can argue here about the "Geneva Convention". Lets face it, in modern conditions the GC is a dead duck BTW - The Iraqis are taking most of the casualties NOT US or British forces. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote in message oups.com... I think you have misssed one vital point. The Iranians may not aim to sink a US battlegroup, they may simply want to close the straights of Hormuz. For this purpose the motto would be, if it floats and moves sink it. In which case they would use mines, ships are more easily sunk by letting water in the bottom than by letting air in to the top. Mines really are cheap and effective weapons. One of the main characteristics of asymmetric warfare is that military forces are rarely attacked. "The services are the safest place to be!". Note that the Iranians are as dependent on free traffic movement through the straits as everyone else. No, suicide bombers go into restaurants and target civilians, not the Israeli military. One can argue here about the "Geneva Convention". Lets face it, in modern conditions the GC is a dead duck BTW - The Iraqis are taking most of the casualties NOT US or British forces. All of which while true is irrelevant to the question at hand. 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 =---- |
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 |