A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Defense against UAV's



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 31st 06, 02:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


wrote:
The Raven wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Regardless of the accuracy of this particular account, it is true that
UAVs pose a new problem for navies and armies, especially in the
smaller versions.


Smaller versions typically have no or little combat capability. Great
survellaince platforms etc but not big enough for any serious work. Make it
big enough to do offensive stuff and it's just as detectable as any other
aircraft.

There are useful offensive things that even small aircraft can do -
like damaging radars. A small uav capable of delivering (slowly) 200kg
of payload is much less detectable then your normal fighter. Although
it might be easier to detect/respond to then an antiship missile, it
might also be orders of magnitude cheaper - and therefore employed in
swarm attacks.

Defensive systems are generally designed to detect
and destroy much bigger and more obvious targets, and even if they
manage to spot a small UAV, what would be used to shoot it down?


The current crop of UAVs are still heavily dependant on comms and few have
any serious autonomous combat capability.

How long is that going to last? The rest of the world is not dumb, and
India/China have enough good & cheap programmers and scientists...

Hence, jamming is the most likely defense. Jam the comms the UAV goes into
autonomous mode. Now you hava a relatively dumb target to attack.

Relatively dumb might still be too smart. Especially if it is in
daylight and in good weather - sea is mostly empty and image
recognition is making a lot of progress.

This is the subject of much debate at the moment. Ordinary homing
missiles may not be able to lock-on to a stealthy little UAV (and even
if they could, there's not much logic in using a very expensive missile
to shoot down a very cheap plane).


The smaller UAVs have limited offensive weapons, if any. Those UAVs that do
are much larger, not overly cheaper than a manned fighter/bomber, and just
as easy to detect (particularly if you can detect all the comms traffic).

You think USA style super-duper all-weather fail proof UAVs.

A radar-directed gun system like
Phalanx might also not lock-on to such a target.


The idea is to take them out long before your last line of defense.

Taking them out early means missiles and/or aircraft. Both will have
problems locking on low signature slow flying targets. And both can be
overwhelmed/depleted by swarm attacks..


Both of these UAVs seem to be on the small side and not capable of much
more than the proported 25 minute flight over an aircraft carrier. The
speed and time indicates a 100 kilometer flight.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ran/ababil.htm

Ababil is equipped with shahid noroozi guidance and control system
designed and manufactured in Iran.It is composed of two aerial and
ground section. The aircraft control is provided with an autopilot
system that transfers flight information data to the ground station via
a datalink system . The system is able to launch the aircraft ,perform
different maneuvers, fly to30 km range, loiter and simulate air attacks
and finally recover the aircraft at a given point. The range will be
increased up to 120 Km simply by increasing the output power of the
communication system.
wing span 325 cm
wing area 1.76m²
Length overall 288 cm
Max. launching weight 83 kg
Max. payload weight 40 kg

Cruise speed 165 Knots
For longer than 5 km range a tracking system is essential.
Endurance is 1.5 h (Can be increased)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...an/mohajer.htm

Mohajer (UAV)

Iran's UAV program was launched in the wake of the 1980-88 war with
Iraq. Iran has also been investing in several families of attack and
multirole UAV. Over the years, Iranian officials have reported the
deployment of target drones and such UAVs as the Mohajer-3 [also called
Hodhod-"a hooded bird") and the Mohajer-4. The Mohajer 4 underwent a
test flight on 16 February 2002. The Saeqeh UAV was tested at the same
time. Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, Ali Shamkhani,
said that Iran is one of the few countries to have the knowledge for
designing and building UAVs, state radio reported.

Country of Origin Iran
Builder Qods Aviation Industries
Length
Wingspan 3 meters
Weight, Empty
Weight, Maximum 85 kilograms
Engine
Maximum speed 200 kmh
Cruising speed
Ceiling 11,000 feet
Surveillance radius 50 kilometers
Endurance 90 minutes
Launch Pneumatic or jet-assisted
Recovery By Parachute
Armament/Payload
Video and infrared cameras providing 1-meter resolution from altitudes
up to 5,000 feet
User Countries/Groups Hizbollah

  #13  
Old May 31st 06, 02:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


Jack Linthicum wrote:

snip
Both of these UAVs seem to be on the small side and not capable of much
more than the proported 25 minute flight over an aircraft carrier. The
speed and time indicates a 100 kilometer flight.

I am not that much worried about the UAVs Iran currently has. More
interesting question is how to defend agains what India/China can
field or sell in 7-10 years.

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. 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).

  #14  
Old May 31st 06, 02:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:

snip
Both of these UAVs seem to be on the small side and not capable of much
more than the proported 25 minute flight over an aircraft carrier. The
speed and time indicates a 100 kilometer flight.

I am not that much worried about the UAVs Iran currently has. More
interesting question is how to defend agains what India/China can
field or sell in 7-10 years.

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. 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).


A swarm of UAVs requires a swarm of controllers and a swarm of secure
frequencies to accomplish that control. I wonder if a follow-on to a
Shrike or ALARM would bother to hit the transmitting antennas and
instead have a large enough warhead to take out the whole controlling
facility.

  #16  
Old May 31st 06, 02:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


kirjoitti:

This line of thought might lead into interesting possible conclusion:
return of coastal artillery. If target acquisition works, why not use
advanced SPH's for anti-ship use? If ERGM type rounds can be used they


And, obviously I don't mean in sense of ERGM rounds or copies of them,
but in sense of rocket assisted guided rounds, with whatever guidance
method suitable for a/s use.

Mvh,
Jon K


  #17  
Old May 31st 06, 03:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


Jack Linthicum wrote:

snip
Both of these UAVs seem to be on the small side and not capable of much
more than the proported 25 minute flight over an aircraft carrier. The
speed and time indicates a 100 kilometer flight.

I am not that much worried about the UAVs Iran currently has. More
interesting question is how to defend agains what India/China can
field or sell in 7-10 years.

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. 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).

  #19  
Old May 31st 06, 03:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


wrote in message
ups.com...

Jack Linthicum wrote:

snip
Both of these UAVs seem to be on the small side and not capable of much
more than the proported 25 minute flight over an aircraft carrier. The
speed and time indicates a 100 kilometer flight.

I am not that much worried about the UAVs Iran currently has. More
interesting question is how to defend agains what India/China can
field or sell in 7-10 years.

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.

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.

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 =----
  #20  
Old May 31st 06, 03:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Defense against UAV's


"ray o'hara" wrote in message
...



laser guided weapons gave a tendency to attack the sun. you only see the
good ones on tv, not all the misses.


Utter ********, the laser sensors look for reflected light at
specific frequencies

rocks eated by the sun. reflections off of pools of water or streams can
also distract them.



You seem not to understand the difference between IR and laser sensors

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:23 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.